J  JL 


:b  f  43 1 


$ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/studyofamericaniOObrig 


A  STUDY  OF  AMERICAN 
INTELLIGENCE 


A  STUDY  OF  AMERICAN 
INTELLIGENCE 


BY 


CARL  C.  BRIGHAM,  Ph.D. 


ASSISTANT  PROFESSOR  OF  PSYCHOLOGY 
IN  PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY 


A  FOREWORD 

By  Robert  M.  Yerkes,  Ph.D. 

CHAIRMAN  RESEARCH  INFORMATION 
SERVICE :  NATIONAL  RESEARCH  COUNCIL 


PRINCETON 

Princeton  University  Press 

LONDON:  HUMPHREY  MILFORD 
OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1923 


COPYRIGHT  1922  BY  CARL  C.  BRIGHAM 


PRINTED  AT  THE  PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY  PRESS,  PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


FOREWORD 


Two  extraordinarily  important  tasks  confront  onr  nation: 
the  protection  and  improvement  of  the  moral,  mental  and 
physical  quality  of  its  people  and  the  re-shaping  of  its  in¬ 
dustrial  system  so  that  it  shall  promote  justice  and  encour¬ 
age  creative  and  productive  workmanship.  I  have  been 
asked  to  write  this  Foreword  because  of  my  official  con- 
nection,  as  chief  of  the  Division  of  Psychology,  Office  of 
the  Surgeon  General  of  the  Army,  with  psychological  ex¬ 
amining  during  the  war,  but  I  have  consented  to  write  it 
because  of  my  intense  interest  in  the  practical  problems 
of  immigration  and  my  conviction  that  the  psychological 
data  obtained  in  the  army  have  important  bearing  on  some 
of  them. 

When  in  April,  1917, 1  visited  Canada  to  learn  what  use 
our  neighbors  were  making  of  psychological  principles  and 
methods  in  their  military  activities,  I  found  Mr.  Carl  C. 
Brigham  attached  as  psychologist  to  the  Military  Hospitals 
Commission.  With  him  as  my  guide,  I  spent  several  hours 
in  interviewing  military  and  civil  officers  and  in  discussing 
our  mutual  problems  and  needs.  The  valuable  information 
which  Mr.  Brigham  helped  me  to  secure  and  his  advice 
contributed  substantially  to  the  report  which  I  later  pre¬ 
sented  to  my  professional  colleagues  at  home,  and  to  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  the  United  States  army. 

In  October,  1917,  our  friend,  eager  for  larger  opportuni¬ 
ties  for  professional  service  than  the  Canadian  army  prom¬ 
ised,  accepted  appointment  in  the  Sanitary  Corps  of  the 
United  States  army  for  psychological  service.  He  aided 


v 


VI 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


efficiently  in  the  trials  of  methods  of  examining  at  Camp 
Dix,  New  Jersey,  and  he  was  then  ordered  to  the  office  of 
the  Surgeon  General  in  Washington  to  help  with  the  revis¬ 
ion  of  tests  and  the  preparation  of  new  methods.  Thus  he 
became  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  procedures  and  results 
of  psychological  examining  in  the  army,  while  at  the  same 
time  contributing  generously  of  ideas,  labor  and  enthu¬ 
siasm.  With  deep  satisfaction  I  use  this  opportunity  to  men¬ 
tion  Mr.  Brigham’s  national  service  and  his  exceptional 
fitness  to  study  and  to  discuss  the  relations  of  army  meas¬ 
urements  of  intelligence  to  nativity  and  residence. 

It  appears  that  Mr.  Charles  W.  Gould,  a  clear,  vigorous, 
fearless  thinker  on  problems  of  race  characteristics,  amal¬ 
gamation  of  peoples  and  immigration,  raised  perplexing 
questions  which  drove  Mr.  Brigham  to  his  careful  and 
critical  re-examination,  analysis,  and  discussion  of  army 
data  concerning  the  relations  of  intelligence  to  nativity 
and  length  of  residence  in  the  United  States.  In  a  recently 
published  book,  America ,  A  Family  Matter ,  to  which  this 
little  book  is  a  companion  volume,  Mr.  Gould  has  pointed 
the  lessons  of  history  for  our  nation  and  has  argued  strongly 
for  pure-bred  races. 

For  the  observational  data  which  Mr.  Brigham  used  in 
preparing  this  book  we  are  indebted  to  the  competent  and 
devoted  company  of  psychologists  which  during  the  war 
labored  in  camp  and  laboratory  on  the  preparation  of  meth¬ 
ods,  the  conduct  of  examinations,  and  the  application  of  re¬ 
sults.  But  the  fruits  of  the  labors  of  these  many  psychol¬ 
ogists  might  have  been  lost  to  the  world  had  it  not  been  for 
the  insight,  zeal,  and  industry  of  Carl  R.  Brown,  Mark  A. 
May  and  Edwin  G.  Boring,  who  evolved  methods  of  statis¬ 
tical  treatment,  applied  them  and  prepared  the  resulting 
materials  for  publication. 

Mr.  Brigham  has  rendered  a  notable  service  to  psychol- 


FOREWORD 


Vll 


ogy,  to  sociology,  and  above  all  to  our  law-makers  by 
carefully  re-examining  and  re-presenting  with  illuminating 
discussion  the  data  relative  to  intelligence  and  nativity 
first  published  in  the  official  report  of  psychological  exam¬ 
ining  in  the  United  States  army.  Far  from  belittling  or 
casting  doubt  on  the  general  reliability  of  the  results  con¬ 
tained  in  the  report,  he  has  essentially  confirmed  the  major 
findings  in  the  field  of  his  special  inquiry  and  has  adduced 
new  evidences  of  the  trustworthiness  and  scientific  value 
of  the  statistical  methods  used  by  military  psychologists. 
His  task  has  been  arduous  and  difficult,  involving  an  im¬ 
mense  amount  of  tedious  labor  for  mathematical  calcula¬ 
tions  and  critical  study  of  results.  The  volume  which  is  the 
outcome  of  Mr.  Brigham’s  inquiry,  and  which  I  now  have 
the  responsibility  and  satisfaction  of  recommending,  is  sub¬ 
stantial  as  to  fact  and  important  in  its  practical  implica¬ 
tions.  It  is  not  light  or  easy  reading  but  it  is  better  worth 
re-reading  and  reflective  pondering  than  any  explicit  dis¬ 
cussion  of  immigration  which  I  happen  to  know.  The 
author  presents  not  theories  or  opinions  but  facts.  It  be¬ 
hooves  us  to  consider  their  reliability  and  their  meaning, 
for  no  one  of  us  as  a  citizen  can  afford  to  ignore  the  menace 
of  race  deterioration  or  the  evident  relations  of  immigra¬ 
tion  to  national  progress  and  welfare. 

Robert  M.  Yerkes. 

Washington,  D.  C. 

June  1922 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Foreword  v 

Introduction  xix 

Part  I  :  The  Army  Tests 

Section  1  examination  alpha  3 

Section  2  examination  beta  32 

Section  3  the  individual  examinations  54 

Section  4  reliability  of  the  measures  59 

Part  II  :  Statistical  Analysis  of  the  Army  Test 
Results 

Section  1  the  principal  sample  75 

Section  2  analysis  of  the  main  groups  of  the 

PRINCIPAL  SAMPLE  77 

Section  3  analysis  of  the  white  draft  into 

FOREIGN  AND  NATIVE  BORN  84 

Section  4  analysis  of  the  foreign  born  white 

DRAFT  INTO  YEARS  OF  RESIDENCE 
GROUPS  88 

Section  5  analysis  of  immigration  to  the 

UNITED  STATES  112 

Section  6  analysis  of  the  foreign  born  white 

DRAFT  BY  COUNTRY  OF  BIRTH  118 

Section  7  reliability  of  the  results  154 

Section  8  the  race  hypothesis  157 

Section  9  re-examination  of  previous  con¬ 

clusions  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  THE  RACE 
HYPOTHESIS  177 

Section  10  comparison  of  our  results  with  the 

CONCLUSIONS  OF  OTHER  WRITERS  ON 
THE  SUBJECT  182 

197 


Conclusions 


ix 


PLATES 


PLATE 

I 

II 

III 

IV 
V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

IX 

X 

XI 

XII 

XIII 

XIV 
XV 


Alpha  test  1 
Alpha  test  2 
Alpha  test  3 
Alpha  test  4 
Alpha  test  5 
Alpha  test  6 
Alpha  test  7 
Alpha  test  8 
Beta  test  1 

Beta  test  2 

Beta  test  3 

Beta  test  4 

Beta  test  5 

Beta  test  6 

Beta  test  7 


:  ORAL  DIRECTIONS 
I  ARITHMETICAL  REASONING 
:  PRACTICAL  JUDGMENT 
:  SYNONYM-ANTONYM 
:  DISARRANGED  SENTENCES 
:  NUMBER  SERIES  COMPLETION 
:  ANALOGIES 
:  INFORMATION 
:  MAZE 

:  CUBE  ANALYSIS 
:  X-O  SERIES 
:  DIGIT-SYMBOL 
:  NUMBER  CHECKING 
:  PICTURE  COMPLETION 
I  GEOMETRICAL  CONSTRUCTION 


PAGE 

5 

9 

13 

18 

21 

24 

26 

29 

35 

38 

41 

44 

47 

50 

53 


x 


FIGURES 


FIGURE  PAGE 

1.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  oral  directions  test  6 

2.  The  Gaussian  normal  distribution  7 

3.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  arithmetical  reason¬ 

ing  test  10 

4.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  practical  judgment 

test  14 

5.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  synonym-antonym 

test  17 

6.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  disarranged  sentence 

test  20 

7.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  number  series  com¬ 

pletion  test  23 

8.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  analogies  test  2 5 

9.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  information  test  28 

10.  Black-board  chart  for  demonstrating  the  maze 

test  33 

11.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  maze  test  34 

12.  Black-board  chart  for  demonstrating  the  cube 

analysis  test  36 

13.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  cube  analysis  test  37 

14.  Black-board  chart  for  demonstrating  the  X-Q 

series  test  39 

15.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  X-0  series  test  40 

16.  Black-board  chart  for  demonstrating  the  digit- 

o  o 

symbol  test  42 


xi 


xii  FIGURES 

FIGURE  PAGE 

17.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  digit-symbol  test  43 

18.  Black-board  chart  for  demonstrating  the  number 

checking  test  45 

19.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  number  checking  test  46 

20.  Black-board  chart  for  demonstrating  the  picture 

completion  test  48 

21.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  picture  completion 

test  49 

22.  Black-board  chart  for  demonstrating  the  geomet¬ 

rical  construction  test  51 

23.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  geometrical  con¬ 

struction  test  52 

24.  The  normal  distribution  curve  59 

25.  A  skewed  distribution  curve  60 

26.  Examination  alpha  as  independent  of  education  65 

27.  Distribution  of  intelligence  scores  according  to 

rank  66 

28.  Success  in  Officers’  Training  Camps  as  predicted 

by  examination  alpha  67 

29.  Comparison  of  army  test  records  with  various 

independent  criteria  69 

30.  Success  in  civil  occupations  compared  with  army 

test  records  70 

31.  Distributions  of  scores  of  the  white  officers,  white 

draft,  and  negro  draft  on  the  combined  scale  81 

32.  Distributions  of  scores  of  the  native  born  and  for¬ 

eign  born  white  draft  on  the  combined  scale  87 

33.  Apparently  increasing  average  intelligence  with 

increasing  years  of  residence  94 

34.  Distributions  of  the  alpha  scores  of  three  groups  108 

35.  Analysis  of  immigration  by  countries  114 

36.  Relative  standing  of  the  nativity  groups  accord¬ 

ing  to  their  average  intelligence  124 


FIGURES 


Xlll 


FIGURE  PAGE 

37.  Relative  standing  of  the  nativity  groups  in  the 

proportions  of  A  and  B  men,  and  D,  D—  and 
E  men  146 

38.  The  proportion  of  each  nativity  group  obtaining 

scores  at  or  above  the  average  of  the  white 
officers  149 

39.  The  proportion  of  each  nativity  group  at  or  below 

the  average  of  the  negro  draft  151 

40.  The  proportion  of  each  nativity  group  testing  be¬ 

low  the  approximate  “mental  age”  of  eight  153 

41.  Ai  nalysis  of  immigration  to  the  United  States  ac- 

cording  to  the  estimated  amount  of  Nordic, 
Mediterranean  and  Alpine  blood  164 

42.  Volume  of  immigration  by  decades  166 

43.  The  distributions  of  the  intelligence  scores  of  the 

Nordic,  Mediterranean  and  Alpine  groups  170 

44.  The  distributions  of  the  intelligence  scores  of  the 

English  speaking  Nordic  and  the  non-English 
speaking  Nordic  groups  173 

45.  The  distributions  of  the  intelligence  scores  of  the 

non-English  speaking  Nordic  group  and  the 
combined  Mediterranean  and  Alpine  groups  175 

46.  The  decline  of  intelligence  with  each  succeeding 

period  of  immigration  198 

47.  The  constituent  elements  of  American  intelligence  200 


TABLES 


PAGE 

1.  Distribution  of  the  intelligence  scores  of  the  main 

groups  of  the  principal  sample  on  the  combined 
scale  80 

2.  Analysis  of  the  white  draft  into  foreign  born  and 

native  born  groups  86 

3.  Analysis  of  the  foreign  born  white  draft  by  years 

of  residence  in  the  United  States  90 

4.  Comparison  of  the  average  scores  on  the  combined 

scale  of  the  five  years  of  residence  groups  of  the 
foreign  born  white  draft  91 

5.  Comparison  of  the  average  scores  on  the  combined 

scale  of  the  native  born  white  draft  with  the  five 
years  of  residence  groups  of  the  foreign  born 
white  draft  92 

6.  Per  cent,  that  emigration  was  of  immigration  for  15 

countries  since  1908  98-99 

7.  Distribution  of  alpha  scores  of  five  groups  106 

8.  Per  cent,  of  total  immigration  coming  from  var¬ 

ious  countries  during  periods  roughly  correspond¬ 
ing  to  the  five  years  of  residence  groups  113 

9.  Analysis  of  the  foreign  born  white  draft  by  coun¬ 

try  of  birth:  actual  distributions  120-121 

10.  Analysis  of  the  foreign  born  white  draft  by  coun¬ 

try  of  birth:  percentage  distributions  122-123 

11.  Differences  between  England  and  other  countries  126 

12.  Differences  between  Scotland  and  other  countries  127 

13.  Differences  between  Holland  and  other  countries  128 

14.  Differences  between  Germany  and  other  countries  129 

15.  Differences  between  the  United  States  and  other 

countries  130 

16.  Differences  between  Denmark  and  other  countries  131 

17.  Differences  between  Canada  and  other  countries  132 


xiv 


TABLES 


xv 


PAGE 

18.  Differences  between  Sweden  and  other  countries  133 

19.  Differences  between  Norway  and  other  countries  134 

20.  Differences  between  Belgium  and  other  countries  135 

21.  Differences  between  Ireland  and  other  countries  136 

22.  Differences  between  Austria  and  other  countries  137 

23.  Differences  between  Turkey  and  other  countries  138 

24.  Differences  between  Greece  and  other  countries  139 

25.  Differences  between  Russia  and  other  countries  140 


26.  Differences  between  Italy  and  other  countries  141 

27.  Differences  between  Poland  and  other  countries  142 

28.  Per  cent,  of  each  nativity  group  in  the  A  and  B 

groups  144 

29.  Per  cent,  of  each  nativity  group  in  the  D,  D  — 

and  E  groups  145 

30.  Per  cent,  of  each  nativity  group  at  or  above  the 

average  of  the  white  officers  148 

31.  Per  cent,  of  each  nativity  group  at  or  below  the 

average  of  the  negro  draft  150 

32.  Per  cent,  of  each  nativity  group  below  the  approxi¬ 

mate  “mental  age”  of  eight  152 

33.  Tentative  estimates  of  the  proportion  of  Nordic, 

Alpine  and  Mediterranean  blood  in  each  of  the 
European  countries  159 

34.  Arrivals  of  alien  passengers  and  immigrants,  1820 

to  1920  160-161 

35.  Estimate  of  the  amount  of  Nordic,  Mediterranean 

and  Alpine  blood  coming  to  this  country  from 
Europe  in  each  decade  since  1840  163 

36.  Analysis  of  the  foreign  born  white  draft  by  races  169 

37.  Analysis  of  the  Nordic  sample  into  an  English 

speaking  Nordic  group  and  a  non-English 


speaking  Nordic  group  172 

38.  Population  of  the  United  States  in  1920  203 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


This  study  is  a  continuation  of  the  work  of  the  small 
group  of  psychologists  who  carried  on  the  difficult  task  of 
analyzing  the  data  from  the  army  psychological  examina¬ 
tions  in  the  office  of  the  Surgeon  General  of  the  Army.  My 
presentation  contains  nothing  new  in  methodology  and  is 
merely  an  extension  of  lines  of  investigation  suggested  by 
this  group  of  workers.  It  rests  on  the  foundations  which 
they  built. 

I  wish  to  make  especial  acknowledgment  to  Colonel 
Robert  M.  Yerkes,  who  has  read  the  manuscript  several 
times  in  its  various  stages  of  preparation  and  has  given 
many  helpful  suggestions.  Professor  Carl  R.  Brown  of  the 
University  of  Michigan,  formerly  of  the  Surgeon  General’s 
staff,  assisted  me  when  I  first  began  to  use  the  combined 
scale,  and  subsequently  read  Sections  1  to  7  of  Part  II  in 
manuscript.  Professor  E.  G.  Boring  of  Harvard  University 
read  Sections  1  to  7  of  Part  II,  and  gave  me  invaluable 
assistance,  especially  in  the  treatment  of  Section  4.  Pro¬ 
fessor  Mark  A.  May  of  Syracuse  University,  Professors 
Edwin  G.  Conklin  and  Howard  C.  Warren  of  Princeton 
University  read  Sections  1  to  7  of  Part  II,  and  suggested 
many  important  changes.  Without  the  assistance  of  all  of 
these  gentlemen  I  could  not  have  carried  through  the  task. 

Mr.  Charles  W.  Gould  suggested  this  continuation  of 
the  army  investigations  in  the  first  instance,  has  sponsored 
the  work  throughout,  has  read  and  re-read  all  of  the  manu¬ 
script  at  every  stage  of  its  preparation,  and  is  mainly 
responsible  for  the  whole  work.  In  my  treatment  of  the 
race  hypothesis  I  have  relied  on  his  judgment  and  on  two 
books,  Mr.  Madison  Grant’s  Passing  of  the  Great  Race ,  and 


XVII 


xviii  AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 

Professor  William  Z.  Ripley’s  Races  of  Europe.  These 
three  gentlemen  cannot  be  held  responsible  however  for  my 
percentage  analysis  of  the  present  racial  constitution  of 
European  countries,  an  analysis  which  I  made  as  a  novice 
in  the  field  of  anthropology,  and  for  which  I  offer  further 
apologies  in  the  text  of  Section  8. 

Mr.  David  M.  Maynard  and  Mr.  Charles  H.  Helliwell, 
two  of  my  undergraduate  students,  assisted  me  faithfully 
in  carrying  through  the  laborious  statistical  calculations 
involved  in  using  the  combined  scale. 

Carl  C.  Brigham 

Princeton,  N.  J. 

September  1922 


INTRODUCTION 


The  question  of  the  differences  that  may  exist  between 
the  various  races  of  man,  or  between  various  sub-species 
of  the  same  race,  or  between  political  aggregations  of  men 
in  nationality  groups  may  easily  become  the  subject  of 
the  most  acrimonious  discussion.  The  anthropologists  of 
France  and  Germany,  shortly  after  the  close  of  the  Franco- 
Prussian  war,  fought  another  national  war  on  a  small 
scale.  It  is  difficult  to  keep  racial  hatreds  and  antipathies 
out  of  the  most  scholarly  investigations  in  this  field.  The 
debate  becomes  especially  bitter  when  mental  traits  are 
discussed.  No  one  can  become  very  indignant  on  finding 
his  race  classified  by  its  skull  dimensions,  stature,  or  hair 
color,  but  let  a  person  discover  the  statement  that  his  race 
is  unintelligent  or  emotionally  unstable,  and  he  is  immedi¬ 
ately  ready  to  do  battle. 

Until  recent  years  we  have  had  no  methods  available 
for  measuring  mental  traits  scientifically,  so  that  the  lit¬ 
erature  on  race  differences  consists  largely  of  opinions  of 
students  who  are  very  apt  to  become  biased,  when,  leaving 
the  solid  realm  of  physical  measurements,  they  enter  the 
more  intangible  field  of  estimating  mental  capacity. 

Gradually,  however,  various  investigators  using  more  or 
less  refined  psychological  measurements  commenced  to  as¬ 
semble  a  body  of  data  that  will  some  day  reach  respectable 
proportions.  The  status  of  the  psychological  investigations 
of  race  differences  up  to  1910  has  been  admirably  sum¬ 
marized  by  Woodworth.1  Since  1910,  we  have  witnessed 

1R.  S.  ’Woodworth.  Racial  Differences  in  Mental  Traits,  Science,  New  Series,  Vol. 
31,  pp.  171-1S6. 


XIX 


XX 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


in  this  country  a  remarkable  development  in  methods  of 
intelligence  testing,  and  these  methods  have  been  applied 
to  the  study  of  race  differences.  Scattered  investigations 
report  and  compare  the  intelligence  scores  of  children  of 
white,  negro,  or  Indian  parentage,  and  sometimes  the 
scores  of  various  nationality  or  nativity  groups.  The  re¬ 
sults  of  these  investigations  are,  however,  almost  impos¬ 
sible  to  correlate,  for  they  have  been  made  by  different 
methods,  by  different  measuring  scales,  on  children  of  a 
wide  variety  of  chronological  ages,  and  above  all,  on  com¬ 
paratively  small  groups  of  subjects,  so  that  conclusions 
based  on  the  studies  have  no  high  degree  of  reliability. 

For  our  purposes  in  this  country,  the  army  mental  tests 
give  us  an  opportunity  for  a  national  inventory  of  our  own 
mental  capacity,  and  the  mental  capacity  of  those  we  have 
invited  to  live  with  us.  We  find  reported  in  Memoir  XV  of 
the  National  Academy  of  Sciences1  the  intelligence  scores 
of  about  81,000  native  born  Americans,  12,000  foreign 
born  individuals,  and  23,000  negroes.  From  the  standpoint 
of  the  numbers  examined,  we  have  here  an  investigation 
which,  of  course,  surpasses  in  reliability  all  preceding  in¬ 
vestigations,  assembled  and  correlated,  a  hundred  fold. 
These  army  data  constitute  the  first  really  significant  con¬ 
tribution  to  the  study  of  race  differences  in  mental  traits. 
They  give  us  a  scientific  basis  for  our  conclusions. 

When  we  consider  the  history  of  man  during  the  half 
million  years  which  have  probably  elapsed  since  the  time 
of  the  erect  primate,  Pithecanthropus ,  the  temporary  polit¬ 
ical  organizations,  such  as  Greece,  Rome,  and  our  modern 
national  groups,  become  of  minor  importance  compared 
with  the  movements  of  races  and  peoples  that  have  oc¬ 
curred.  The  tremendous  expansion  of  the  Alpine  race  at 
the  end  of  the  Neolithic  and  the  beginning  of  the  Bronze 

1 Psychological  Examining  in  the  United  States  Army.  Edited  by  Robert  M. 
Yerkes.  Washington:  Government  Printing  Office,  1921,  pp.  890. 


INTRODUCTION 


xxi 


Period,  the  submergence  of  this  race  by  the  Nordics  in  the 
2000  years  preceding  the  Christian  era,  and  the  subsequent 
peaceful  re-conquest  of  Eastern  Europe  by  the  Alpine  Slavs 
from  the  Dark  Ages  on,  represent  an  historical  movement 
in  comparison  with  which  the  Great  World  War  of  1914 
resembles  a  petty  family  squabble. 

If  the  history  of  the  United  States  could  be  written  in 
terms  of  the  movements  of  European  peoples  to  this  con¬ 
tinent,  the  first  stage  represents  a  Nordic  immigration,  for 
New  England  in  Colonial  times  was  populated  by  an  almost 
pure  Nordic  type.  There  followed  then  a  period  of  Nordic 
expansion.  The  next  great  movement  consisted  of  the  mi¬ 
grations  of  Western  European  Mediterraneans  and  Alpines 
from  Ireland  and  Germany,  a  movement  which  started 

t/ 

about  1840,  and  which  had  practically  stopped  by  1890. 
Since  there  is  a  considerable  proportion  of  Nordic  blood  in 
Ireland  and  Germanv,  we  should  not  regard  the  original 

%j  7  O  O 

Nordic  immigration  as  a  movement  which  stopped  sud¬ 
denly,  but  merely  as  having  dwindled  to  two-fifths  or  one- 
half  of  the  total  racial  stock  coming  here  between  1840  and 
1890.  The  third  and  last  great  movement  consisted  of  mi¬ 
grations  of  the  Alpine  Slav  and  the  Southern  European 
Mediterraneans  to  this  continent,  a  movement  that  started 
about  1890,  and  which  has  not  yet  ceased.  Running  parallel 
with  the  movements  of  these  European  peoples,  we  have 
the  most  sinister  development  in  the  history  of  this  con¬ 
tinent,  the  importation  of  the  negro. 

The  army  mental  tests  enable  us  to  analyze  the  elements 
entering  into  American  intelligence.  The  intelligence  test 
records  of  the  native  born,  the  foreign  born,  and  the  negro 
are  at  our  disposal.  The  records  deserve  the  most  serious 
study.  But  before  considering  the  results  of  the  army  tests, 
a  person  should  be  well  informed  concerning  the  nature  of 
the  tests,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  were  constructed. 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


xxii 

The  army  psychological  tests  included  three  types  of 
examination : 

(1)  Group  examination  alpha,  which  included  eight  dif¬ 
ferent  sorts  of  tests,  most  of  which  involved  the  ability  to 
read  English. 

(2)  Group  examination  beta,  which  included  seven  dif¬ 
ferent  sorts  of  tests,  none  of  which  involved  the  ability 
either  to  read  English  or  to  understand  spoken  English, 
the  tests  consisting  of  pictures,  designs,  etc.,  and  being 
given  by  instructions  in  pantomime. 

(3)  Individual  examinations  of  two  types: 

(a)  Those  involving  the  use  of  English,  the  Stanford 
revision  of  the  Binet-Simon  scale  and  the  point 
scale,  and 

( b )  Those  involving  no  English,  consisting  of  con¬ 
struction  puzzles,  etc.,  the  instructions  being 
given  by  gestures, — the  “performance  scale.” 

When  a  detachment  reported  for  psychological  examina¬ 
tion,  the  first  step  was  that  of  separating  the  English 
speaking  and  literate  from  the  non-English  speaking  or 
illiterate.  Those  who  were  both  English  speaking  and  liter¬ 
ate  were  given  examination  alpha.  All  others  were  sent  to 
beta.  At  the  close  of  examination  alpha,  all  men  who  had 
made  low  scores  were  sent  to  beta.  After  examination  beta 
had  been  given,  the  examiners  tried  to  recall  for  individual 
examinations  all  men  who  had  made  a  low  score  in  beta. 
In  the  rush  of  examining  it  was  impossible  to  recall  all  men 
for  individual  examinations  who  should  have  been  given 
special  examinations,  and  some  men  were  graded  on  alpha 
who  should  have  been  graded  on  beta,  and  vice  versa,  but 


INTRODUCTION 


xxm 

most  men  were  properly  graded  by  the  rough  methods  in 
use.  In  each  one  of  the  examinations  the  range  of  scores 
was  so  great  that  most  men  had  an  opportunity  to  score. 

The  great  contribution  of  the  committee  that  first  de¬ 
vised  the  army  examining  methods  and  of  the  men  who 
subsequently  developed  additional  methods  in  the  army 
consisted  of  creating  and  standardizing  group  examinations 
alpha  and  beta.  The  methods  of  individual  examining  were 
already  in  existence,  the  Stanford-Binet  scale  being  an  elab¬ 
oration  of  Binet’s  “mental  age”  scale,  and  the  tests  of  the 
performance  scale  having  been  more  or  less  completely 
worked  out  by  other  investigators.  The  task  of  examining 
men  in  large  groups  was  first  carried  through  successfully 
in  the  army.  Before  the  war,  many  psychologists  would 
have  scoffed  at  the  notion  of  examining  two  or  three  hun¬ 
dred  men  at  once  by  giving  them  booklets  containing  dif¬ 
ferent  sorts  of  tests,  but  the  large  group  examinations  be¬ 
came  matters  of  daily  routine.  Group  tests  have  subsequent- 

lv  been  tried  out  in  schools  and  industries  with  excellent 
*/ 

results  from  the  standpoint  of  test  administration.  Indeed, 
when  the  army  alpha  examination  was  given  at  Ohio  State 
University  in  October,  1919,  practically  the  entire  student 
body,  6000  in  number,  was  tested  by  five  examiners  in 
eight  hours.  In  the  service,  it  was  found  that  one  examiner 
could  control  a  group  of  200  men  with  ease.  The  alpha  in¬ 
structions  were  read  by  the  examiner,  and  the  men  ordered 
to  start  and  stop  at  the  proper  time.  Examination  beta  was 
more  difficult  to  administer,  and  was  given  to  smaller 
groups. 

The  statistical  methods  of  treating  the  results  of  the 
army  tests  used  in  this  study  are  rather  intricate,  but  the 
principles  involved  are  easily  understood.  At  the  outset  we 
must  frankly  admit  that  there  were  minor  errors  in  the 
three  types  of  examinations  given.  We  can  not  correct  the 


XXIV 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


type  of  tests  that  were  used,  but  we  can  correct  the  method 
of  scoring  them.  Most  of  the  difficulties  of  scoring  arise 
from  the  fact  that  different  types  of  measuring  scales  were 
used.  During  the  war,  the  different  scales  were  converted 
into  one  general  scale  of  letter  grades  (A,  B,  C  +  ,  C,  C— , 
D  and  D— ).  This  method  was  rough,  and  although  it  an¬ 
swered  the  purposes  of  the  army  at  the  time,  it  can  not  be 
used  in  any  scientific  interpretation  of  the  results. 

Examination  alpha  was  scored  by  finding  the  score  on 
each  of  the  eight  tests,  adding  to  get  a  total,  and  then  con¬ 
verting  the  total  into  a  letter  grade.  Beta  was  similarly 
scored.  It  is  apparent  that  some  tests  in  alpha  might  be 
more  difficult  than  others,  that  some  tests  in  beta  might  be 
easier  than  any  test  in  alpha,  and  that  variations  might 
have  occurred  which  it  was  impossible  to  predict  at  the 
time  the  examinations  were  made.  Recognizing  these  facts, 
then,  the  army  statisticians  worked  out  another  method  of 
scoring  the  results,  which  eliminates  all  of  these  sources 
of  error.  This  method  is  known  as  the  combined  scale ,  a 
theoretical  intelligence  scale  running  from  0  to  25,  into 
which  the  alpha,  beta  and  individual  examination  scores 
may  be  converted,  so  that  we  finally  have  one  measure¬ 
ment  instead  of  three. 

Psychological  measurements  involve  much  more  than 
creating  tests  and  giving  tests.  After  all  the  results  are  in, 
we  still  have  the  problem  of  interpreting  the  results,  and 
this  interpretation  is  largely  a  statistical  problem.  Too 
much  credit  can  not  be  given  to  the  staff  of  the  Psycholog¬ 
ical  Division  of  the  Surgeon  General’s  Office,  who  con¬ 
tinued  in  the  service  long  after  the  war  was  over,  patiently 
studying  and  analyzing  the  results.  The  combined  scale 
was  very  largely  the  work  of  two  young  psychologists,  Carl 
R.  Brown  and  Mark  A.  May,  and  their  work  on  this  prob¬ 
lem,  reported  in  Chapter  2,  Part  3  of  Memoir  XV,  is  with- 


INTRODUCTION 


XXV 


out  doubt  the  greatest  contribution  that  has  yet  been  made 
to  the  statistical  phases  of  the  science  of  mental  measure¬ 
ment. 

The  theory  underlying  the  combined  scale  is  simply  that 
of  regarding  each  test  of  alpha  and  beta  as  a  separate 
measuring  scale.  One  group  of  individuals  including  1047 
men  born  in  English  speaking  countries,  was  examined  on 
alpha,  re-examined  on  beta,  and  if  possible,  examined  again 
on  the  Stanford-Binet  scale.  This  group  of  1047  cases  con¬ 
stituted  the  basis  on  which  a  method  of  combining  the  sep¬ 
arate  tests  into  a  combined  scale  was  empirically  evolved. 

From  now  on  in  the  course  of  our  study  of  the  army  test 
records,  we  must  regard  alpha  and  beta  as  two  booklets 
containing,  in  all,  fifteen  different  measuring  scales  of  in¬ 
telligence.  The  first  step  in  the  study  consists  of  under¬ 
standing  the  nature  of  each  of  the  fifteen  scales.  In  Part  I, 
the  fifteen  tests  have  been  reproduced  (Plates  I  to  XV), 
and  the  actual  records  of  the  1047  men  shown  in  each  in¬ 
stance,  so  that  the  reader  may  see  exactly  how  the  tests 
worked. 


PART  I 


THE  ARMY  TESTS 


SECTION  I 


EXAMINATION  ALPHA 


Alpha  Test  1.  Oral  Directions 


The  first  test  in  alpha  consisted  of  a  series  of  commands 
or  directions  which  were  to  be  executed  quickly.  The  in¬ 
structions,  with  the  incidental  commands  about  stopping 
and  starting  eliminated,  are  reproduced  below.  One  may 
read  the  instructions  for  each  item  to  himself  slowly  and 
turn  the  page  to  Plate  I  to  test  his  own  ability  to  execute 
the  commands. 


Item  1. 


Item  2. 


Item  3. 


Item  4. 


Item  5. 


Instructions  :  Oral  Directions  (Form  8) 

Time  limit  :  5  seconds. 

4 ‘Make  a  figure  2  in  the  second  circle  and  also  a 
cross  in  the  third  circle.” 

Time  limit  :  5  seconds. 

“Draw  a  line  from  circle  1  to  circle  4  that  will 
pass  below  circle  2  and  above  circle  3.” 

Time  limit  :  10  seconds. 

“Make  a  figure  1  in  the  space  which  is  in  the 
square  but  not  in  the  triangle,  and  also  make  a 
cross  in  the  space  which  is  in  the  triangle  and  in 
the  square.” 

Time  limit  :  10  seconds. 

“Make  a  figure  2  in  the  space  which  is  in  the 
circle  but  not  in  the  triangle  or  square,  and  also 
make  a  figure  3  in  the  space  which  is  in  the  tri¬ 
angle  and  circle,  but  not  in  the  square.” 

Time  limit  :  10  seconds. 

“If  taps  sound  in  the  evening,  then  put  a  cross 


3 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


4 


Item  6. 


Item  7. 


Item  8. 


Item  9. 


in  the  first  circle;  if  not,  draw  a  line  under  the 
word  NO.” 

Time  limit  :  10  seconds. 

“Put  in  the  first  circle  the  right  answer  to  the 
question:  ‘How  many  months  has  a  year?’  In 
the  second  circle  do  nothing,  but  in  the  fifth  cir¬ 
cle  put  any  number  that  is  a  wrong  answer  to 
the  question  that  you  have  just  answered  cor¬ 
rectly.” 

Time  limit  :  10  seconds. 

“ Cross  old  the  letter  just  after  F  and  also  draw 
a  line  under  the  second  letter  after  I.” 

Time  limit  :  10  seconds. 

“Make  in  the  first  circle  the  last  letter  of  the  first 
word;  in  the  second  circle  the  middle  letter  of  the 
second  word  and  in  the  third  circle  the^r^  letter 
of  the  third  word.” 

Time  limit  :  15  seconds. 

“ Cross  out  each  number  that  is  more  than  50  but 
less  than  GO.” 


Item  10.  Time  limit  :  15  seconds. 

“Put  a  4  or  a  5  in  each  of  the  two  largest  parts 
and  any  number  between  6  and  9  in  the  part  next 
in  size  to  the  smallest  part.” 

Item  11.  Time  limit  :  25  seconds. 

“Draw  a  line  through  every  odd  number  that  is 
not  in  a  square,  and  also  through  every  odd 
number  that  is  in  a  square  with  a  letter.” 

Item  12.  Time  limit  :  10  seconds. 

“If  4  is  more  than  2,  then  cross  out  the  number  3 
unless  3  is  more  than  5,  in  which  case  draw  a 
line  under  the  number  4.” 


J-.Tl.Jl 


1 ooooo 


5  ooo  Yes  No 

e  OOOOO 


7  ABGDEFGH1JKLMNOP 

8  OOO  MILITARY  GUN  CAMP 


123456789 


Plate  I.  Alpha  Test  1  :  Oral  Directions. 


5 


6 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


In  scoring  the  papers  one  point  was  given  for  each  cor¬ 
rect  response.  The  group  of  1047  individuals  born  in  Eng¬ 
lish  speaking  countries  obtained  the  following  scores: 

Total  score  of  test  No .  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 

Number  who  made  each  score  ...  73  78  93  116  100  121  131  94  82  67  52  28  lg 

These  scores  are  shown  graphically  in  Figure  1,  the 
horizontal  direction  indicating  the  total  score  from  the 
lowest  possible  (0)  to  the  highest  possible  (12),  while 


Figure  1.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  Oral  Directions  test.  (From 
p.  624,  Memoir  XV.) 


the  vertical  scale  represents  the  number  of  cases  getting 
each  score,  72  at  0,  78  at  1,  etc. 

For  our  purposes,  we  do  not  want  a  test  that  everyone 
can  pass,  for  if  everyone  passed,  no  one  would  be  graded. 
An  ideal  test  would  be  one  in  which  practically  everyone 
could  obtain  some  score  and  which  very  few  could  finish. 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


7 


Then  all  people  would  be  measured.  An  ideal  test  would 
also  show  a  distribution  of  responses  grouped  symmetric¬ 
ally  about  the  average,  for,  as  a  general  rule,  all  measures 
of  individual  differences  in  mental  traits  show  a  distribution 
similar  to  the  normal  probability  or  chance  distribution. 
An  ideal  test  would  give  the  type  of  distribution  shown  in 
Figure  2. 


Figure  2.  The  Gaussian  normal  distribution. 


Examining  Figure  1,  one  may  see  that  in  general  the  oral 
directions  test  gives  a  type  of  distribution  which  is  approx¬ 
imately  similar  to  the  Gaussian  normal  distribution  shown 
in  Figure  2.  Our  distribution  is  limited  slightly  at  the  lower 
end,  and  it  is  easy  to  imagine  that  the  introduction  of  two 


8 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


or  three  items  easier  than  any  in  the  present  test  would 
give  us  a  step-down  at  the  zero  end  of  the  scale  similar  to 
the  one  at  the  upper  end. 

The  oral  directions  test  really  gives  an  excellent  score 

distribution.  It  is  not  a  “speed”  test  in  the  popular  sense, 

for  the  time  limits  for  each  item,  while  short,  give  ample 

time  for  following  the  directions.  If  a  person  understands 

the  directions  he  can  execute  them  easilv  in  the  time  al- 

«/ 

lowed.  If  the  directions  are  not  understood,  an  hour  to 
execute  them  is  no  more  generous  than  five  seconds.  In 
practice  this  test  was  useful  in  “acclimating”  the  recruit  to 
the  conditions  of  the  examination.  It  was  probably  one  of 
the  poorest  tests  in  alpha  as  a  genuine  test  of  intelligence, 
but  it  served  its  purpose  as  a  “warming  up”  test.  It  is  an 
adaptation  of  a  type  of  test  that  has  been  used  in  psycho¬ 
logical  laboratories  for  many  years  with  rather  mediocre 
results. 


Alpha  Test  2. — Arithmetical  Problems 
Time  limit  :  5  minutes 

Test  2  is  more  of  a  reasoning  test  than  a  measure  of 
proficiency  in  the  fundamental  arithmetical  operations. 
The  first  items  really  constitute  a  literacy  test,  for  if  a 
person  can  read,  he  can  answer  the  questions  correctly. 
The  distribution  of  scores  in  this  test  is  shown  in  Figure  3. 

The  zero  scores  (66  in  number)  are  probably  due  to  the 
inclusion  of  illiterates  in  the  group  of  1047  cases.  Disregard¬ 
ing  the  zero  scores,  the  distribution  is  regular.  This  test 
illustrates  admirably  the  principle  of  fixing  a  time  limit 
such  that  very  few  people  can  answer  all  the  items  cor¬ 
rectly.  The  approximate  rule  adopted  in  fixing  the  time 
limit  in  the  first  instance  was  that  this  limit  should  be  such 
that  not  more  than  five  per  cent,  of  an  unselected  group 


Get  the  answers  to  these  examples  as  quickly  as  you  can. 
Use  the  side  of  this  page  to  figure  on  if  you  need  to. 


SAMPLES 


1  How  many  are  5  men  and  10  men? . Answer  ( 

2  If  you  walk  4  miles  an  hour  for  3  hours,  how  far 

do  you  walk? . Answer  ( 


1  How  many  are  60  guns  and  5  guns? . Answer  ( 

2  If  you  save  $9  a  month  for  3  months,  how  much  will  you 

save? . . Answer  ( 

3  If  48  men  are  divided  into  squads  of  8,  how  many  squads  will 

there  be? . Answer  ( 

4  Mike  had  11  cigars.  He  bought  2  more  and  then  smoked  7. 

How  many  cigars  did  he  have  left? . Answer  ( 

5  A  company  advanced  8  miles  and  retreated  2  miles.  How  far 

was  it  then  from  its  first  position? . Answer  ( 

6  How  many  hours  will  it  take  a  truck  to  go  42  miles  at  the  rate 

of  3  miles  an  hour? . . . Answer  ( 

7  How  many  pencils  can  you  buy  for  60  cents  at  the  rate  of  2 

for  5  cents? . Answer  ( 

8  A  regiment  marched  40  miles  in  five  days.  The  first  day  they 

marched  9  miles,  the  second  day  6  miles,  the  third  10  miles,  the 
fourth  6  miles.  How  many  miles  did  they  march  the  last 
day? . . . Answer  ( 

9  If  you  buy  2  packages  of  tobacco  at  8  cents  each  and  a  pipe  for 

65  cents,  how  much  change  should  you  get  from  a  two-dollar 
bill? . . . . . . . . . . Answer  ( 

10  If  it  takes  4  men  3  days  to  dig  a  120-foot  drain,  how  many  men 

are  needed  to  dig  it  in  half  a  day? . . Answer  ( 

11  A  dealer  bought  some  mules  for  82,000.  He  sold  them  for 

$2,400,  making  $50  on  each  mule.  How  many  mules  were 
there? . .  , . Answer  ( 

12  A  rectangular  bin  holds  £00  cubic  feet  of  lime.  If  the  bin  is 

10  feet  long  and  5  feet  wide,  how  deep  is  it? . Answer  ( 

13  A  recruit  spent  one-eighth  of  his  spare  change  for  post  cards 

and  twice  as  mugh  for  a  box  of  letter  paper,  and  then  had  $1 .00 
left.  How  much  money  did  he  have  at  first . Answer  ( 

14  If  2>l/2  tons  of  clover  cost  $14,  what  will  OYi  tons  cost?.  .Answer  ( 

15  A  ship  has  provisions  to  last  her  crew  of  700  men  2  months. 

How  long  would  it  last  400  men? . . . .  . . Answer  ( 

16  If  an  aeroplane  goes  250  yards  in  10  seconds,  how  many  feet 

does  it  go  in  a  fifth  of  a  second? . . . Answer  ( 

.17  A  U-boat  makes  8  miles  an  hour  under  water  and  20  miles  on 
the  surface.  How  long  will  it  take  to  cross  a  100-mile  channel, 
if  it  has  to  go  two-fifths  of  the  way  under  water?. . Answer  ( 

18  If  134  squads  of  men  are  to  dig  3,618  yards  of  trench,  how 

many  yards  must  be  dug  by  each  squad? . Answer  ( 

19  A  certain  division  contains  5,000  artillery,  15,000  infantry,  and 

1,000  cavalry.  If  each  branch  is  expanded  proportionately 
until  there  are  in  all  23,100  men,  how  many  will  be  added  to  the 
artillery? . Answer  ( 

20  A  commission  house  which  had  already  supplied  1 ,897  barrels 
of  apples  to  a  cantonment  delivered  the  remainder  of  its  stock 
to  37  mess  halls .  Of  this  remainder  each  mess  hall  received  54 
barrels  t^Wfiat  was  the  total  number  of  barrels  supplied  jh .  Answer  C 


15 

12 


Plate  II.  Alpha  Test  2:  Arithmetical  Reasoning  (Form  8). 

9 


) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 


10 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


would  complete  all  the  items  in  a  test.  In  our  group  of  1047 
cases,  5  persons  answered  18  problems  correctly  in  the  five 
minutes  allowed,  but  no  one  answered  more  than  18  prob¬ 
lems  correctly.  Of  course  no  one  was  expected  to  answer 
them  all.  If  a  person  passed  65%  of  each  test  in  alpha  he 
was  graded  “A”;  perfection  was  not  required. 


Figure  3.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  Arithmetical  Reasoning 
test.  (From  p.  6 24,  Memoir  XV.) 


One  often  hears  the  statement  that  the  army  tests  were 
“speed’'  tests,  and  penalized  the  slow  but  accurate  indi¬ 
vidual.  Experiments  were  made  to  determine  how  the  re¬ 
sults  would  change  with  extended  time.  A  group  of  475 
men  examined  showed  in  Test  2  an  improvement  from  an 
average  of  8.00  to  9.16  with  double  time.  In  five  minutes 
they  solved  on  an  average  8  problems  correctly,  in  ten  min¬ 
utes  9.16.  The  relationship  between  single  time  and  double 
time  scores  may  be  measured  by  the  statistical  value  known 
as  the  coefficient  of  correlation.  Two  measures  that  stand 
in  a  perfect  one  to  one  correspondence  have  a  coefficient 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


11 


of  correlation  of  1.00.  Two  measures  that  stand  in  a  perfect 
chance  relationship  have  a  correlation  coefficient  of  0.  In 
practice  it  is  found  that  a  correlation  of  0.90  is  so  high  that 
one  might  substitute  one  series  of  measures  for  the  other 
without  seriously  changing  the  results.  The  correlation  be¬ 
tween  the  single  time  and  double  time  scores  was  0.937,  a 
value  so  high  that  it  indicates  that  there  were  very  few 
changes  in  the  relative  position  of  the  members  of  the 
group,  and  that  such  changes  as  occurred  were  small. 

The  experiments  that  were  conducted  on  time  limits  with 
the  various  tests  all  pointed  to  the  conclusion  that  the  re¬ 
sults  would  not  be  changed  with  the  more  extended  time 
limits.  Of  course  the  absolute  scores  would  be  higher  with 
the  extended  time,  but  the  relative  position  of  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  group  would  be  about  the  same.  In  the  experi¬ 
ment  on  double  time  referred  to  above,  all  the  tests  from  2 
to  8  in  alpha  showed  coefficients  of  correlation  between 
single  time  and  double  time  above  0.90  except  Test  3 
(0.879),  and  the  correlation  of  the  two  total  scores  ob¬ 
tained  under  single  and  double  time  was  0.967.  The  army 
experimenters  after  considering  all  the  evidence  concluded 
that  ‘'doubling  the  time  does  not  result  in  any  demonstr¬ 
able  improvement  in  alpha  as  a  whole.”  (p.  417).  It  is  prob¬ 
ably  true  that  very  high  scores  depend  on  "speed,”  but 
inasmuch  as  a  person  only  needed  to  answer  correctly  65% 
of  the  items  to  be  rated  "A”  and  50%  of  the  items  to  be 
rated  "B,”  it  can  not  be  considered  that  "speed”  is  a  factor 
that  would  affect  the  results  seriously. 

The  army  findings  of  a  correlation  of  0.967  between  the 
single  time  and  double  time  trials  of  alpha,  and  the  general 
conclusion  that  the  results  would  not  have  been  changed 
appreciably  with  more  liberal  time  allowances,  definitely 
controvert  the  popular  belief  that  anything  which  is  per¬ 
formed  with  a  time  limit  handicaps  the  "slow  but  sure” 


12 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


individual.  Popular  judgment  classifies  the  population  into 
two  groups,  the  “slow  but  sure”  and  the  “quick  and  inac¬ 
curate,”  and  would  have  us  believe  that  the  quick  type 
must  of  necessity  be  inaccurate,  and  that  the  sluggish  indi¬ 
vidual  is  infallible.  Science  shows  us  that  we  really  rate 
individuals  on  two  scales,  a  scale  of  speed  and  a  scale  of 
accuracy,  and  that  we  find  people  who  are  both  quick  and 
accurate  as  well  as  people  who  are  slow  and  inaccurate. 
Science  would  elaborate  the  popular  classification  by  add¬ 
ing  these  two  types.  The  popular  “slow  but  sure”  charac¬ 
terization  is  more  apt  to  be  an  apology  for  dullness  than 
a  scientific  diagnosis.  At  least  in  our  consideration  of  the 
army  test  results  we  may  definitely  discard  the  opinion 
that  we  are  testing  “speed”  rather  than  intelligence.  The 
arithmetical  reasoning  test  in  alpha  actually  proved  to  be 
one  of  the  best  tests  in  the  series. 

Alpha  Test  3. — Practical  Judgment 
Time  limit  :  V/2  minutes 

The  practical  judgment  test  is  one  of  the  most  interest¬ 
ing  tests  in  alpha  from  many  standpoints.  There  is  no  other 
test  in  alpha  which  contains,  in  all  of  the  five  forms  used,  so 
many  individual  items  that  may  be  criticised  by  a  person 
who  actually  inquires  into  the  logical  validity  of  the  an¬ 
swers  accepted  as  correct.  Item  12,  for  instance,  might 
profitably  be  taken  as  the  subject  of  an  intercollegiate  de¬ 
bate,  as  it  has  been  the  subject  of  many  debates  in  the 
history  of  penology.  The  critics  of  the  army  tests  are  all 
too  apt  to  consider  the  whole  scale  invalid  if  they  can  dis¬ 
cover  a  single  incorrect  item,  for  they  fail  to  realize  that  a 
person  could  fall  down  on  35%  of  the  individual  items  and 
still  be  rated  “A.” 


This  is  a  test  of  common  sense.  Below  are  sixteen  questions.  Three  answers  are  given  to  each 
question.  You  are  to  look  at  the  answers  carefully;  then  make  a  cross  in  the  square  before  the  best 
answer  to  each  question,  as  in  the  sample: 


SAMPLE  < 


Why  do  we  use  stoves?  Because 

□  they  look  well 

@  they  keep  us  warm 

□  they  are  black 


Here  the  second  answer  is  the  best  one  and  is  marked  with  a  cross.  Begin  with  No.  1  and  keep 
on  until  time  is  called. 


1  It  is  wiser  to  put  some  money  aside  and  not 
spend  it  all,  so  that  you  may 

O  prepare  for  old  age  or  sickness 
0  collect  all  the  different  kinds  of  money 
0  gamble  when  you  wish 

2  Shoes  are  made  of  leather,  because 
0  it  is  tanned 

0  it  is  tough,  pliable  and  warm 
0  it  cad  be  blackened 

3  Why  do  soldiers  wear  wrist  watches  rather 
than  pocket  watches?  Because 

0  they  keep  better  time 
0  they  are  harder  to  break 
0  they  are  handier 

4  The  mam  reason  why  .-stone  is  used  for  building 
purposes  is  because 

0  it  makes  a  good  appearance 
0  it  is  strong  and  lasting 
0  it  is  heavy 

5  Why  is  beet  better  food  than  cabbage? 
Because 

0  it  tastes  better 
0  it  is  more  nourishing 
0  it  is  harder  to  obtain 

6  If  some  one  does  you  a  favor,  what  should  you 
do? 

0  try  to  forget  it 
0  steal  for  him  if  he  asks  you  to 
0  return  the  favor 

7  If  you  do  not  get  a  letter  from  home,  which  you 
know  was  written,  it  may  be  because 

0  it  was  lost  in  the  mails 
0  you  forgot  to  tell  your  people  to  write 
0  the  postal  sendee  has  been  discontinued 

8  The  main  thing  the, fanners  do  is  to 
0  supply  luxuries 

0  make  work  for  the  unemployed 
0  feed  the  nation 

Go  to  No.  9  above 


9  If  a  man  who  can’t  swim  should  fall  into  a 
river,  he  should 

0  yell  for  help  and  try  to  scramble  out 
0  dive  to  the  bottom  and  crawl  out 
0  lie  on  his  back  and  float 

10  Glass  insulators  are  used  to  fasten  telegraph 
wires  because 

0  the  glass  keeps  the  pole  from  being  burned 
0  the  glass  keeps  the  current  from  escaping 
0  the  glass  is  cheap  and  attractive 

11  If  your  load  of  coal  gets  stuck  in  the  mud, 
what  should  you  do? 

0  leave  it  there 

0  get  more  horses  or  men  to  pull  it  out 
0  throw  off  the  load 

12  Why  are  criminals  locked  up? 

0  to  protect  society 

0  to  get  even  with  them 
0  to  make  them  work 

13  Why  should  a  married  man  have  his  life  in¬ 
sured?  Because 

0  death  may  come  at  any  time 
0  insurance  companies  are  usually  honest 
0  his  family  will  not  then  suffer  if  he  dies 

14  In  Leap  Year  February  has  29  days  because 
0  February  is  a  short  month 

0  some  people  are  born  on  February  29th 
0  otherwise  the  calendar  would  not  come  out 
right 

15  If  you  are  held  up  and  robbed  in  a  strange  city, 
you  should 

0  apply  to  the  police  for  help 
0  ask  the  first  man  you  meet  for  money  to 
get  home 

0  borrow  some  money  at  a  bank 

16  Why  should  we  have  Congressmen?  Because 
0  the  people  must  be  ruled 

0  it  insures  truly  representative  government 
0  the  people  are  too  many  to  meet  and  make 
their  laws 


Plate  III.  Alpha  Test  3:  Practical  Judgment  (Form  8). 


13 


14  AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 

The  distribution  of  the  scores  made  in  Test  3  is  shown 
in  Figure  4. 


Figure  4.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  Practical  Judgment  test. 
(From  p.  624,  Memoir  XV .) 


Disregarding  the  large  number  of  zero  scores  (163),  which 
are  probably  the  result  of  illiteracy  plus  failure  to  under¬ 
stand  instructions,  and  also  recognizing  the  fact  that  a  few 
low  positive  scores  may  be  due  to  chance,  we  may  look  at 
the  distribution  as  entirely  satisfactory. 

Many  persons  object  to  the  short  time  limit  (1  ]/o  min¬ 
utes),  but  the  test  was  undoubtedly  more  effective  with  this 
short  limit  than  it  would  have  been  with  the  longer  time. 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


-i  ^ 

10 

The  average  score  improves  from  G.32  to  9.85  with  double 
time,  and  the  correlation  between  and  3  minutes  work 
on  the  test  is  0.879.  There  are  decided  indications  that 
double  time  would  not  be  useful  in  improving  the  record 
of  those  whose  score  was  high  in  the  first  \x/i  minutes. 

A  very  excellent  criterion  of  the  efficiency  of  a  test  is 
its  value  in  differentiating  between  officers  and  men.  In 
general,  a  sample  of  officers  would  contain  a  larger  per¬ 
centage  of  men  of  high  intelligence  than  a  sample  of  en¬ 
listed  men.  The  amount  that  a  test  differentiates  the  groups 
would  indicate  the  value  of  the  test.  This  test  of  practical 
judgment  was  the  worst  test  in  the  whole  series  in  differ¬ 
entiating  officers  from  men.  If  we  used  this  criterion  alone 
there  would  be  no  possible  excuse  for  retaining  the  test  in 
the  series.  In  differentiating  officers  from  men,  it  was  about 
twice  as  bad  as  the  next  to  the  poorest  test  (oral  direc¬ 
tions). 

On  the  other  hand,  we  need  tests  in  alpha  which  are 
effective  at  the  lower  end  of  the  scale,  and  we  can  set  up 
as  our  criterion  here  the  value  of  the  test  in  differentiating 
between  feeble-minded  individuals  and  enlisted  men.  The 
alpha  tests  were  given  to  the  high  grade  feeble-minded 
population  of  two  custodial  institutions,  and  the  results 
compared  with  a  group  of  300  English  speaking  enlisted 
men.  Test  3  proved  to  be  very  much  superior  to  any  other 
test  in  the  series  in  differentiating  between  feeble-minded 
individuals  and  enlisted  men.  This  fact  more  than  justifies 
the  inclusion  of  Test  3  in  the  scale. 

All  of  these  facts  are  difficult  to  interpret.  My  own  inter¬ 
pretation  is  that  the  sixteen  items  did  not  measure  or  grade 
“practical  judgment”  in  any  sense,  but  that  the  inclusion 
of  at  least  one  very  obviously  false  and  really  quite  silly 
alternative  in  each  item  acted  as  an  effective  pitfall  for  the 


16 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


feeble-minded.  At  least  we  are  sure  that  the  actual  experi¬ 
mental  results  are  conclusive  enough  to  dispose  of  any  and 
all  arm-chair  criticisms. 


Alpha  Test  4. — Synonym -Antonym 
Time  limit  :  l3dz  minutes 

If  one  will  review  the  experimental  literature  of  intelli¬ 
gence  testing,  he  will  find  the  synonym-antonym  or  “op¬ 
posites”  test,  used  sometimes  as  a  test  of  controlled  asso¬ 
ciation,  sometimes  as  a  test  of  vocabulary,  sometimes  as  a 
test  of  intelligence,  but  uniformly  with  excellent  results. 
Given  a  group  with  a  knowledge  of  English  and  sufficient 
intelligence  to  understand  the  nature  of  the  problem, 
the  synonym-antonym  test  will  give  as  good  a  differentia¬ 
tion  between  the  bright  and  dull  members  of  the  group, 
rated  by  an  outside  criterion,  as  any  other  standard  test 
now  available. 

The  distribution  of  the  scores  in  Test  4  is  shown  in 
Figure  5. 

The  most  striking  feature  of  the  distribution  is  the  large 
number  of  scores  that  were  either  zero  or  one  (393).  This 
large  number  of  zero  scores  is  due  to  three  causes.  First, 
the  illiterate  group  could  not  attempt  it.  Second,  the  stupid 
and  literate  could  not  understand  the  instructions  and 
could  not  make  the  kind  of  judgment  demanded.  Third,  in 
the  long  run  chance  or  random  responses  would  give  scores 
around  zero,  for  in  scoring  all  tests  that  were  a  50-50 
guess,  the  total  score  was  the  number  of  right  responses 
minus  the  number  of  wrong  responses.  If  a  person  under¬ 
lined  “same”  for  every  item,  his  score  would  be  20  right 
minus  20  wrong,  or  zero.  If  he  merely  guessed,  he  would, 


Figure  5.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  Synonym-Antonym  Test. 
(From  p.  625,  Memoir  XV.) 


IT 


If  the  two  words  of  a  pair  mean  the  same  or  nearly  the  same,  draw  a 
line  under  same.  If  they  mean  the  opposite,  or  nearly  the  opposite,  draw  a 
line  under  opposite.  If  you  cannot  be  sure,  .guess.  The  two  samples  are 
already  marked  as  they  should  be. 


SAMPLES  $  So0<^ — bad . same — opposite 

1  little — small . same — opposite 

1  no — yes . same — opposite  1 

2  day — night . same — opposite  2 

3  go — leave . same — opposite  3 

4  begin — commence.. . same — opposite  4 

5  bitter — sweet . same — opposite  5 

6  assume — suppose . same — opposite  6 

7  command — obey . same — opposite  7 

8  tease — plague . same — opposite  8 

9  diligent — industrious.., . same — opposite  9 

10  corrupt — honest . . same — opposite  10 

11  toward — from . same — opposite  11 

12  masculine — feminine . same — opposite  12 

13  complex — simple . same — opposite  13 

14  sacred — hallowed . . . same — opposite  14 

15  often — seldom . same — opposite  15 

16  ancient — modern . same — opposite  16 

17  enormous — gigantic . same — opposite  17 

18  confer — grant . same — opposite  18 

19  acquire — lose . same — opposite  19 

20  compute — calculate . same — opposite  20 

21  defile — purify..- . same — opposite  21 

22  apprehensive — fearful . same — opposite  22 

23  sterile — fertile . same — opposite  23 

24  chasm — abyss . same — opposite  24 

25  somber — gloomy . same — opposite  25 

26  vestige — trace.. . same — opposite  26 

27  vilify — praise . . same — opposite  27 

28  finite — limited . same — opposite  28 

29  contradict — corroborate . same — opposite  29 

30  immune — susceptible . same — opposite  30 

31  credit — debit . same — opposite  31 

32  assiduous — diligent . same — opposite  32 

33  transient — permanent . same — opposite  33 

34  palliate — mitigate . same — opposite  34 

35  execrate — revile . .  same — opposite  35 

36  extinct — extant . same — opposite  36 

37  pertinent — relevant . same — opposite  37 

38  synchronous — simultaneous. ..  .same — opposite  38 

39  supercilious — disdainful . same — opposite  39 

40  abstruse — recondite . same — opposite  40 


Plate  IV.  Alpha  Test  4:  Synonym-Antonym  (Form  8). 


18 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


19 


in  the  long  run,  guess  half  of  the  responses  right  and  half 
wrong.  Chance  scores  would  then  be  zero  (which  includes 
all  minus  scores)  and  1  or  2  on  the  positive  side. 

In  general  we  may  interpret  Test  4  as  a  “high  grade” 
test.  It  is  too  difficult  to  give  any  differentiation  between 
low  grade  individuals,  but  it  effectively  grades  the  higher 
orders  of  intelligence.  The  time  limit  is  not  too  short,  for 
doubling  the  time  only  raises  the  average  score  from  10.50 
to  12.60,  and  the  correlation  between  regular  and  extended 
time  is  0.940.  It  is  one  of  the  most  effective  tests  in  the  scale 
for  differentiating  officers  from  enlisted  men,  and  for  dif¬ 
ferentiating  feeble-minded  from  enlisted  men.  The  only 
criticism  is  that  it  was  too  hard  for  a  large  number  of 
people  examined.  Figure  5  really  gives  only  about  half  of 
the  normal  distribution.  If  the  test  were  so  easy  that  the 
lower  end  of  the  scale  could  be  extended  to  about  —20,  the 
distribution  would  become  normal. 


Alpha  Test  5. — Disarranged  Sentences 

Time  limit  :  2  minutes 

This  test  is  an  adaptation  of  a  type  of  test  which  gives 
excellent  results  in  the  Binet-Simon  scale.  As  it  stands  in 
alpha  it  is  not  a  particularly  good  test.  The  distribution  of 
scores  shown  in  Figure  6  indicates  a  pile-up  of  zero  scores 
due  probably  to  the  same  three  causes  described  as  op¬ 
erating  in  Test  4.  The  test  is  fairly  good  in  differentiating 
between  officers  and  enlisted  men,  but  for  some  reason  or 
other  it  is  the  very  worst  test  in  the  whole  series  in  dif¬ 
ferentiating  between  feeble-minded  and  enlisted  men.  On 
the  whole  it  is  one  of  the  poorest  tests  in  our  measuring 
scale. 


Figure  6.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  Disarranged  Sentence  Test. 
(From  p,  626,  Memoir  XV.) 


20 


The  words  A  EATS  COW  GRASS  in  that  order  are  mixed  up  and 
don’t  make  a  sentence;  but  they  would  make  a  sentence  if  put  in  the 
right  order:  A  COW  EATS  GRASS,  and  this  statement  is  true. 

Again,  the  words  HORSES  FEATHERS  HAVE  ALL  would  make 
a  sentence  if  put  in  the  order  ALL  HORSES  HAVE  FEATHERS, 
but  this  statement  is  false. 

Below  are  twenty-four  mixed-up  sentences.  Some  of  them  are  true 
and  some  are  false.  When  I  say  “go,”  take  these  sentences  one  at  a 
time.  Think  what  each  would  say  if  the  words  were  straightened  out, 
but  don’t  write  them  yourself.  Then,  if  what  it  would  say  is  true,  draw 
a  line  under  the  word  “true”;  if  what  it  would  say  is  false,  draw  a  line 
under  the  word  “false.”  If  you  can  not  be  sure,  guess.  The  two 
samples  are  already  marked  as  they  should  be.  Begin  with  No.  1 
and  work  right  down  the  page  until  time  is  called. 


(  a  eats  cow  grass . true,  .false 

SAMPLES  ,  .  ,  ,  „  —  ,  , 

t  horses  feathers  have  all . true,  .false 

1  oranges  yellow  are . true . .  false  1 

2  hear  are  with  to  ears . . . true . .  false  2 

3  noise  cannon  never  make  a . true.,  false  3 

4  trees  in  nests  build  birds . true . .  false  4 

5  nil  water  not  and  will  mix . . . .true .  .false  5 

6  bad  are  shots  soldiers  all . true.,  false  6 

7  fuel  wood  are  coal  and  for  used . . true .  .false  7 

8  moon  earth  the  only  from  feet  twenty  the  is . true . .  false  8 

9  to  life  water  is  necessary . . true . .  false  9 

10  are  clothes  all  made  cotton  of . true,. .false  10 

11  horses  automobile  an  are  than  slower . true,  .false  11 

12  tropics  is  in  the  produced  rubber . true.. false  12 

13  leaves  the  trees  in  lose  their  fall. ..  . . .true,  .false  13 

14  place  pole  is  north  comfortable  a  the . true .  .fake  14 

15  sand  of  made  bread  powder  and  is . . true.,  fake  15 

16  saik  k  steamboat  usually  by  propelled  a . true.,  false  16 

17  k  the  salty  in  water  all  lakes . true.,  fake  17 

18  usually  judge  can  we  actions  man  his  by  a . true ,  .false  18 

19  men  misfortune  have  good  never . . . true,  .false  19 

20  took  valuable  k  for  sharp  making  steel . true,  .fake  20 

21  due  sometimes  calamities  are  accident  to . true.. fake  21 

22  forget  trifling  friends  grievances  never . true,  .fake  22 

23  feeling  is  of  painful  exaltation  the . true . .  fake  23 

24  begin  a  and  apple  acorn  ant  words  with  the . true,  .false  24 

Plate  V.  Alpha  Test  5:  Disarranged  Sentences  (Form  8). 


21 


22  AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 

Alpha  Test  6. — Number  Series  Completion 

Time  limit  :  3  minutes 

This  test  is  the  only  one  in  alpha  demanding  a  high  order 
of  intelligence  almost  entirely  independently  of  the  use  of 
language.  The  greatest  difficulty  was  experienced  with  the 
instructions  for  this  test,  when  the  first  trial  was  made  at 
the  army  camps.  The  preliminary  forms  contained  only  two 
rows  of  samples,  and  the  instructions  included  the  rather 
involved  statement:  ‘  In  the  fines  below,  each  number  is 
gotten  in  a  certain  way  from  the  numbers  corning  before  it. 
Study  out  what  this  wav  is  in  each  fine  and  then  write  in 
the  space  left  for  it  the  number  that  should  come  next. 
The  first  two  fines  are  already  filled  in  as  they  should  bed’ 
In  the  final  alpha  revision,  four  samples  were  included,  and 
the  instructions  were  simplified  verbally  and  read  very 
slowlv.  The  instructions  were  ffiven  as  follows:  “Look  at 

o 

the  first  sample  row  of  figures  at  the  top  of  the  page:  2,  4, 
6,  8,  10,  12;  the  two  numbers  that  should  come  next  are, 
of  course,  14,  16/’  etc.,  for  each  sample.  Long  pauses  fol¬ 
lowed  the  reading  of  each  sample. 

The  distribution  of  responses  given  in  Figure  7  shows 
that  the  simplified  instructions  gave  very  good  results,  for 
although  there  were  many  zero  scores  in  our  experimental 
group  of  1047  cases  (,244),  there  were  probably  no  more 
zero  scores  than  might  have  been  expected  when  we  con¬ 
sider  that  the  mere  understanding  of  what  was  wanted  re¬ 
quired  considerable  intelligence.  On  the  whole  the  number 
series  completion  test  proved  to  be  entirely  satisfactory. 


\ 


23 


SAMPLES 


8  7 

2  3 

7  2 


6  5 

3  4 

7  3 


4  3  2 

4  5  5 

7  4  7 


Look  at  each  row  of  numbers  below,  and  on  the  two  dotted  lines 
write  the  two  numbers  that  should  come  next. 


3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

9 

9 

7 

7 

5 

5 

3 

6 

9 

12 

15 

18 

8 

1 

6 

1 

4 

1 

5 

9 

13 

17 

21 

25 

8 

9 

12 

13 

16 

17 

27 

27 

23 

23 

19 

19 

1 

2 

4 

8 

16 

32 

19 

16 

14 

11 

9 

6 

11 

13 

12 

14 

13 

15 

2 

3 

5 

8 

12 

17 

18 

14 

17 

13 

16 

12 

29 

28 

26 

23 

19 

14 

20 

17 

15 

14 

11 

9 

81 

27 

9 

3 

1 

Vs 

1 

4 

9 

16 

25 

36 

16 

17 

15 

18 

14 

19 

3 

6 

8 

16 

18 

36 

Plate  VI.  Alpha  Test  6:  Number  Series  Completion  (Form 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 

Alpha  Test  7. — Analogies 


25 


Time  limit  :  3  minutes 

The  analogies  test  gave  results  on  a  par  with  the  syn¬ 
onym-antonym  test.  The  distribution  of  scores  given  in 
Figure  8  shows  a  large  number  of  zero  scores  (284),  but  this 
number  is  not  larger  than  might  have  been  expected,  con¬ 
sidering  the  amount  of  intelligence  necessary  even  to 
understand  the  nature  of  the  task  to  be  performed.  This 
test  again  shows  only  a  partial  distribution.  It  it  had  been 
easier,  it  would  probably  have  shown  a  symmetrical  dis¬ 
tribution. 


Figure  8.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  Analogies  Test.  (From  p. 
625,  Memoir  XV.) 


(  sky — blue : :  grass —  table  green  warm  big 
SAMPLES  <  fish — swims  : :  man —  paper  time  walks  girl 
(  day — night : :  white —  red  black  clear  pure 

In  each  of  the  lines  below,  the  first  two  words  are  related  to  each  other  in  some  way.  What 
you  are  to  do  in  each  line  is  to  see  what  the  relation  is  between  the  first  two  words,  and  under¬ 
line  the  word  in  heavy  type  that  is  related  in  the  same  way  to  the  third  word.  Begin  with 
No.  1  and  mark  as  many  sets  as  you  can  before  time  is  called. 


1  shoe — foot::  hat — kitten  head  knife  penny .  1 

2  pup — dog  ::  lamb — red  door  sheep  book . 2 

3  spring — summer  : :  autumn —  winter  warm  harvest  rise . .  3 

4  devil — angel::  bad — mean  disobedient  defamed  good..... _  4 

5  finger — hand  ::  toe — body  foot  skin  nail . . .  5 

6  legs — frog::  wings — eat  swim  bird  nest . 6 

7  chew — teeth  ::  smell— sweet  stink  odor  nose . 7 

8  lion — roar::  dog — drive  pony  bark  harness .  8 

9  cat — tiger  : :  dog —  wolf  bark  bite  snap .  9 

10  good— bad  ::  long — tall  big  snake  short . • .  10 

11  giant — large  ::  dwarf — jungle  small  beard  ugly . . 11 

12  winter — season::  January — February  day  month  Christmas..  12 

13  skating — winter  : :  swimming —  diving  floating  hole  summer _  13 

14  blonde — light ::  brunette — dark  hair  brilliant  blonde .  14 

15  love — friend  ::  hate — malice  saint  enemy  dislike .  15 

16  egg — bird::  seed — grow  plant  crack  germinate .  16 

17  dig — trench  ::  build — run  house  spade  bullet .  17 

18  agree — quarrel  i :  friend —  comrade  need  mother  enemy .  18 

19  palace — king ::  hut — peasant  cottage  farm  city .  19 

20  cloud-burst — shower ::  cyclone — bath  breeze  destroy  West...  20 

21  Washington — Adams : :  first —  president  second  last  Bryan  . .  21 

22  parents — command ::  children — men  shall  women  obey .  22 

23  diamond — rare ::  iron — common  silver  ore  steel . •.  .  23 

24  yes — affirmative : :  no — think  knowledge  yes  negative .  24 

25  hour — day::  day — night  week  hour  noon . 25 

26  eye — head  ::  window — key  floor  room  door .  26 

27  clothes — man  ::  hair — horse  comb  beard  hat . .  27 

28  draw — picture ::  make — destroy  table  break  hard. .  28 

29  automobile — wagon  : :  motorcycle —  ride  speed  bicycle  car .  29 

30  granary — wheat : :  library —  read  books  paper  chairs .  30 

31  Caucasian — English  ::  Mongolian — Chinese  Indian  negro  yellow. .  31 

32  Indiana — United  States  : :  part —  hair  China  Ohio  whole .  32 

33  esteem — despise  ::  friends — Quakers  enemies  lovers  men .  33 

34  abide — stay  : :  depart —  come  hence  leave  late .  34 

35  abundant — scarce  ::  cheap — buy  costly  bargain  nasty .  35 

36  whale — large  ::  thunder — loud  rain  lightning  kill .  36 

37  reward — hero  : :  punish —  God  everlasting  pain  traitor . .  37 

38  music — soothing  ::  noise — hear  distracting  sound  report . .  38 

39  book — writer  : :  statue —  sculptor  liberty  picture  state . •. . . .  39 

40  wound — pain  : :  health  —  sickness  disease  exhilaration  doctor. .  40 


Plate  VII.  Alpha  Test  7:  Analogies  (Form  8). 


26 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


27 


In  the  construction  of  this  test  it  was  deliberately  plan¬ 
ned  to  make  many  items  very  difficult  by  introducing  as  a 
wrong  alternative  a  word  that  was  frequently  associated 
with  the  key  word.  For  instance,  we  find  in  the  last  20  items 
the  following  easily  associated  pairs  which  would  be  wrong: 
(21)  first-last,  (22)  no-yes,  (25)  day-night,  (26)  window- 
door,  (27)  hair-comb,  (28)  make-break,  (29)  motor-cycle- 
ride,  (SO)  library-read,  (32)  part-hair,  (35)  cheap-buy,  (36) 
thunder-lightning,  (38)  noise-hear,  (39)  statue-liberty,  (40) 
health-sickness.  The  test  therefore  involves  not  only  the 
selection  of  the  right  word,  but  the  refusal  to  accept  as  the 
solution  a  word  that  is  exceedingly  attractive  owing  to  fre¬ 
quent  associations. 

The  analogies  test  is  the  most  effective  test  in  the  entire 
series  in  differentiating  officers  from  men.  Eor  some  reason, 
not  understood,  it  does  not  rank  high  in  differentiating 
feeble-minded  from  enlisted  men.  The  scores  show  a  con¬ 
siderable  average  improvement  with  extension  of  time  limit 
(8.60  to  12.46)  but  a  correlation  of  0.920  between  three  and 
six  minutes  work.  On  the  whole  it  is  an  excellent  test. 


28 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 

Alpha  Test  8. — Information 


Time  limit  :  4  minutes 

The  army  information  test  has  been  criticised  more  than 
any  other  test,  and  it  has  undoubtedly  received  much  more 
abuse  than  it  deserves.  From  the  standpoint  of  test  con¬ 
struction  it  is  satisfactory,  for,  aside  from  the  zero  scores 
probably  due  to  illiteracy,  the  distribution  as  shown  in 
Figure  9  is  rather  good. 


Figure  9.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  Information  Test.  (From 
p.  626,  Memoir  XV.) 

The  most  frequent  charge  made  against  the  test  is  that 
a  person  could  fail  in  certain  items  and  still  be  intelligent. 
This  is  certainly  true,  and  the  criticism  would  be  valid  if 
anyone  were  expected  to  answer  all  the  items,  or  if  he  were 
considered  unintelligent  if  he  failed.  The  average  person 
answered  less  than  15  items  correctly. 


Notice  the  sample  sentence: 

People  hear  with  the  eyes  ears  nose  mouth 
The  correct  word  is  ears,  because  it  makes  the  truest  sentence. 

In  each  of  the  sentences  below  you  have  four  choices  for  the  last  word.  Only  one  of  them  is  cor¬ 
rect.  In  each  sentence  draw  a  line  under  the  one  of  these  four  words  which  makes  the  truest  sentence. 
If  you  can  not  be  sure,  guess.  The  two  samples  are  already  marked  as  they  should  be. 


(  People  hear  with  the 

eyes 

ears 

nose  mouth 

saaiplesI 

" 

(  France  is  in  Europe 

Asia 

Africa 

Australia 

1  The  apple  grows  on  a  shrub 

vine 

bush 

tree . 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 
17 
IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 


Five  hundred  is  played  with  rackets  pins  cards  dice . . . . 

The  Percheron  is  a  kind  of  goat  horse  cow  sheep . .. . . 

The  most  prominent  industry  of  Gloucester  is  fishing  packing  brewing  automobiles . . 

Sapphires  are  usually  blue  red  green  yellow... . • . . . 

The  Rhode  Island  Red  is  a  kind  of  horse  granite  cattle,  .fowl . 

Christie  Mathewson  is  famous  as  a  writer  artist  baseball  player  comedian . 

Revolvers  are  made  by  Swift  &  Co.  Smith  &  Wesson  W.  L.  Douglas  B.  T.  Babbitt. 
Carrie  Nation  is  known  as  a  singer  temperance  agitator  suffragist 
“There’s  a  reason”  is  an  “ad”  for  a  drink  revolver  flour  cleanser. 


nurse. 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

1'. 


Artichoke  is  a  kind  of  hay  com  vegetable  fodder . . 

Chard  is  a  fish  lizard  vegetable  snake . . . 

Cornell  Ur  iversity  is  at  Ithaca  Cambridge  Annapolis  New  Haven. . . .  13 

Buenos  Aires  is  a  city  of  Spain  Brazil  Portugal  Argentina . . .  14 

Ivory  is  obtained  from  elephants  mines  oysters  reefs... . . . .  15 

Alfred  Noyes  is  famous  as  a  painter  poet  musician  sculptor .  16 

The  armadillo  is  a  kind  of  ornamental  shrub  animal  musical  instrument  dagger .  17 

The  tendon  of  Achilles  is  in  the  heel  head  shoulder  abdomen .  18 

Crisco  is  a  patent  medicine  disinfectant  tooth-paste  food  product . . .  19 

An  aspen  is  a  machine  fabric  tree  drink . 20 


The  sabre  is  a  kind  of  musket  sword  cannon  pistol . . . . . 

The  mimeograph  is  a  kind  of  typewriter  copying  machine  phonograph  pencil . 

Maroon  is  a  food  fabric  drink  color . ’. .  . . . 

The  clarionet  is  used  in  music  stenography  book-binding  lithography . 

Denim  is  a  dance  food  fabric  drink . . . 


21 

22 

23 

24 

25 


26  The  author  of  “Huckleberry  Finn”  is  Poe  Mark  Twain  Stevenson  Hawthorne .  26 

27  Faraday  was  most  famous  in  literature  war  religion  science; .  27 

28  Air  and  gasolene  are  mixed  in  the  accelerator  carburetor  gear  case  differential . '  28 

29  The  Brooklyn  Nationals  are  called  the  Giants  Orioles  Superbas  Indians . 29 

30  Pasteur  is  most  famous  in  politics  literature  war  science . ...  .....  30 

31  •  Becky  Sharp  appears  in  Vanity  Fair  Romola  The  Christmas  Carol  Henry  IV .  31 

32  The  number  of  a  Kaffir’s  legs  is-  two  four  six'  eight . . . .  .  32 

33  Habeas  corpus  is  a  term  used  in  medicine  law  theology  pedagogy . .  33 

34  Ensilage  is  a  term  used  in  fishing  athletics  farming  hunting .  34 

35  The  forward  pass  is  used  in  tennis  hockey  football  golf . 35 

36  General  Lee  surrendered  at  Appomattox  in  1812  1865  1886  1832 .  36 

37  The  watt  is  used  in  measuring  wind  power  rainfall  water  power  electricity .  37 

38  The  Pierce  Arrow  car  is  made  in  Buffalo  Detroit  Toledo  Flint .  38 

39  Napoleon  defeated  the  Austrians  at  Friedland  Wagram  Waterloo  Leipzig .  39 

40--  An  irregular  four-sided  figure  is  called  a  .scholium  triangle  trapezium  pentagon .  40 


Plate  VIII. 


Alpha  Test  8:  Information  (Form  8) 


29 


30 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


The  test  was  devised  to  sample  as  many  fields  of  infor¬ 
mation  as  it  was  possible  to  sample  with  40  items.  In  gen¬ 
eral  the  five  information  tests  in  the  five  forms  of  alpha 
sampled  similar  fields.  For  instance,  the  advertising  slogans 
which  appear  in  the  five  forms  are  “Hasn’t  scratched  yet” 
(Form  5),  “The  makings  of  a  nation”  (Form  6),  “Even¬ 
tually,  why  not  now?”  (Form  7),  “There’s  areason”  (Form 
8),  and  “The  flavor  lasts”  (Form  9),  while  the  Overland, 
Buick,  Rolls-Royce,  Pierce  Arrow  and  Packard  appear  in 
each  of  the  five  forms. 

Information  tests  vary  considerably  in  construction. 
There  is  a  great  difference  between  asking  for  the  date  of 
Lee’s  surrender  and  asking  a  person  to  choose  between  the 
four  dates,  1812,  1865,  1886  and  1832.  And  again,  a  person 
is  merely  asked  to  elect  whether  the  bassoon,  xylophone, 
cymbal,  clarionet  and  piccolo,  appearing  in  each  of  the  five 
forms  of  alpha,  should  be  used  in  music,  stenography,  book 
binding,  or  lithography.  Approximately  a  third  of  the  times 
test  for  vocabulary  rather  than  information  in  the  literal 
sense.  If  a  person,  for  instance,  knows  what  a  Zulu,  or  a 
Korean,  or  a  Hottentot,  or  a  Kaffir  or  a  Papuan  is,  he  very 
obviously  knows  the  number  of  his  legs. 

As  a  rule  women  object  to  the  information  test  more  than 
men  because  the  test  samples  rather  heavily  the  fields  of 
sport,  mechanical  interests,  etc.  The  chances  are  that  this 
test  would  penalize  women  rather  heavily,  but  as  a  general 
rule  the  results  of  comparing  the  two  sexes  on  alpha  as  a 
whole  at  various  colleges  show  very  slight  differences  in 
favor  of  the  men.  The  sex  differences  found  are  not  large 
enough  to  be  significant. 

At  Camp  Lee  a  group  of  164  captains  and  200  enlisted 
men  of  the  same  general  intelligence  level  (i.  e.  A  and  B) 
were  examined.  The  test  showing  the  greatest  differentia¬ 
tion  between  the  two  groups  was  the  information  test.  The 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


31 


only  other  test  showing  a  difference  in  favor  of  the  captains 
was  Test  4  (synonym-antonym  test),  while  the  test  for  arith¬ 
metical  reasoning  (Test  2)  and  practical  judgment  (Test  3) 
showed  differences  in  favor  of  the  A  and  B  enlisted  men. 
The  differences  were,  of  course,  small,  but  the  greatest  dif¬ 
ference  was  shown  by  the  information  test.  In  differentiat¬ 
ing  between  officers  and  the  general  run  of  enlisted  men, 
the  information  test  was  fairly  effective,  and  it  was  very 
nearly  as  good  as  the  arithmetical  reasoning  and  synonym- 
antonym  test  in  differentiating  between  feeble-minded  in¬ 
dividuals  and  enlisted  men,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the 
feeble-minded  obtained  a  somewhat  higher  percentage  of 
their  total  score  from  this  test  than  did  the  enlisted  men. 

After  weighing  all  the  evidence,  it  would  seem  that  we 
are  justified  in  ignoring  most  of  the  arm-chair  criticisms  of 
this  test  and  in  accepting  the  experimental  evidence  tend¬ 
ing  to  show  that  the  test  was  a  fairly  good  one.  The  assump¬ 
tion  underlying  the  use  of  a  test  of  this  type  is  that  the 
more  intelligent  person  has  a  broader  range  of  general  in¬ 
formation  than  an  unintelligent  person.  Our  evidence  shows 
that  this  assumption  is,  in  the  main,  correct. 


SECTION  II 


EXAMINATION  BETA 

When  we  turn  to  examination  beta,  we  meet  an  en¬ 
tirely  different  problem,  that  of  testing  the  intelligence  of 
wholly  or  partially  illiterate  persons  who  could  not  take 
alpha  on  account  of  their  language  handicap,  of  testing  non- 
English  speaking  persons  some  of  whom  knew  only  the 
simplest  commands  in  English,  and  low  grade  individuals 
who  did  not  have  sufficient  intelligence  to  make  a  substan¬ 
tial  score  on  alpha.  At  the  time  of  the  first  try-out  of  the 
army  tests  in  the  fall  of  1917  at  four  cantonments,  Devens, 
Dix,  Lee  and  Taylor,  examination  a ,  the  fore-runner  of 
alpha,  was  in  use,  and  various  types  of  individual  examina¬ 
tions  were  being  tried  out,  but  there  was  no  non-verbal 
group  test.  To  meet  this  need,  a  preliminary  try-out  of  fif¬ 
teen  tests  was  made  early  in  1918,  and  a  final  examination 
composed  of  seven  tests  was  subsequently  published  and 
widely  used  throughout  the  country.  In  the  following  pages 
the  seven  beta  tests  are  reproduced  in  Plates  9  to  15,  the 
method  of  administering  them  is  described,  and  the  results 
from  the  experimental  group  of  1047  cases  are  presented. 

Examination  beta  was  given  under  the  most  rigid  experi¬ 
mental  conditions.  The  experimenter  stood  on  a  platform 
back  of  which  was  a  large  black-board  on  which  small  dup¬ 
licates  of  the  seven  tests  could  be  shown  one  at  a  time.  A 
demonstrator,  whose  duties  were  to  act  out  the  test  prob¬ 
lems  on  the  black-board,  was  an  essential  part  of  the  ex¬ 
periment.  The  experimenter  in  pantomime  showed  the  de¬ 
monstrator  what  to  do  on  the  black-board,  then,  after  his 


32 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


33 


performance  was  completed,  orderlies  throughout  the  room 
explained  to  the  men  that  they  were  to  go  ahead  with  the 
test  and  do  what  the  demonstrator  had  done.  The  orderlies’ 
vocabulary  was  limited  to  “Yes,”  “No,”  “Sure,”  “Good,” 
“Quick,”  “Hurry  up,”  “How  many?”  “Same,”  “Do  it,” 
“Fix  it.”  The  experimenter  used  just  as  few  words  as  pos¬ 
sible,  and  acted  out  every  spoken  sentence  by  pointing, 
motioning,  etc.  The  demonstrator  never  spoke.  His  duties 
consisted  of  doing  before  the  group  just  what  the  group 
was  expected  to  do  with  the  examination  blanks. 


Beta  Test  1. — Maze 
Time  limit  :  2  minutes 

The  black-board  was  turned  so  that  two  sample  mazes 
as  shown  in  Figure  10  appeared.  The  experimenter  traced 

TEST  1 


“Lri 

ti  r _ 

j ,  L 
r  1  ->• 

J  rr 

c 

— 

i^n 

F 

_1  L  i 

1 

r 

""  1 

1 

Figure  10.  Black-board  chart  for  demonstrating  the  Maze  Test. 


34 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


through  the  first  maze  on  the  black-board,  and  then  mo¬ 
tioned  the  demonstrator  to  go  ahead.  The  demonstrator 
traced  through  the  maze  with  crayon  very  slowly.  The  ex¬ 
perimenter  then  traced  through  the  second  maze  and  mo¬ 
tioned  the  demonstrator  to  go  ahead.  The  demonstrator 
in  tracing  this  maze  made  a  mistake  by  crossing  the  line 
at  the  end  of  a  blind  alley,  was  corrected  by  the  experi¬ 
menter  with  vigorous  shakes  of  the  head  and  “no-no,”  and 
made  to  re-trace  his  path  back  to  where  he  could  start  right 
again.  The  demonstrator  then  traced  through  the  rest  of 


Figure  11.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  Maze  Test.  (From  p.  627, 
Memoir  XV.) 


1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


Plate  IX.  Beta  Test  1:  Maze. 


35 


36 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


the  maze  with  great  semblance  of  haste,  stopping  momen¬ 
tarily  at  each  ambiguous  point  only.  The  experimenter  then 
motioned  to  the  group  to  do  the  same  thing  on  their  exam¬ 
ination  blanks.  The  experimenter  and  the  orderlies  walked 
about  the  room,  motioning  to  the  men  who  were  not  work¬ 
ing,  and  saying,  “Do  it,  do  it,  hurry  up,  quick.” 

The  results  of  the  maze  test  are  shown  in  Figure  11.  The 
difference  between  the  distribution  of  scores  of  this  test 
and  the  alpha  tests  is  remarkable.  In  the  first  place,  our 
large  number  of  zero  scores  has  disappeared — only  19  in 
our  group  of  1047  failed  to  make  any  score.  In  the  second 
place,  the  test  is  entirely  too  easy,  for  it  is  apparent  that 
the  men  in  the  upper  end  of  the  scale  could  have  done  more 
in  the  time  allowed.  The  maze  test  was  intentionally  made 
easy  in  order  to  get  everybody  started.  We  have  at  last 
found  a  test  in  which  practically  everybody  can  do  some¬ 
thing.  Aside  from  the  language  involved,  every  test  in  alpha 
is  harder  than  this  beta  maze  test,  for  no  alpha  test  has  less 
than  7%  zero  scores. 


Beta  Test  2. — Cube  Analysis 


Time  limit  :  2}^  minutes 


The  black-board  was  turned  to  show  a  series  of  cubes 
like  that  in  Figure  12.  On  a  shelf  was  a  real  three  cube 


TEST  2 


m 

U  U  "□  □ 


Figure  12.  Blackboard  chart  for  demonstrating  the  Cube  Analy¬ 
sis  Test. 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


37 


model  similar  to  the  first  one  on  the  black-board.  The  ex¬ 
perimenter  pointed  to  the  three  cube  picture  on  the  black¬ 
board,  then  to  the  model  on  the  shelf,  then  to  the  picture 
on  the  black-board,  and  asked,  “How  much?”  The  experi¬ 
menter  then  counted  aloud,  putting  up  his  fingers  while 
counting,  and  encouraged  the  men  to  count  with  him.  The 
experimenter  then  tapped  each  cube  on  the  black-board 
and  asked  the  demonstrator,  “How  much?”  The  demon¬ 
strator  then  went  to  the  black-board,  counted  the  cubes  by 
pointing,  and  wrote  the  number  3  in  the  space  below  the 
illustration.  A  similar  performance  was  enacted  for  the 
other  three  problems  on  the  [black-board,  the  models  being 
shown  and  elaborately  counted. 

The  distribution  of  scores  of  the  cube  analysis  test  is 
shown  in  Figure  13.  Here  we  find  a  somewhat  larger  num- 


Figure  13.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  Cube  Analysis  Test. 
(From  p.  627,  Memoir  XV.) 

ber  of  zero  scores  (54)  than  in  the  maze  test,  but  a  fairly 
good  distribution  in  general.  On  the  whole  the  test  is  easy. 


Plate  X.  Beta  Test  2 :  Cube  Analysis. 


38 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE  39 

Beta  Test  3. — X-0  Series 

Time  limit  :  1%  minutes 

The  black-board  was  turned  to  show  the  chart  repro¬ 
duced  in  Figure  14.  The  experimenter  traced  with  a  pointer 


TEST  3 


0 

oololol 

LIT] 

X 

XXX 

0 

o 

2< 

o 

ox 

oc 

>x  L 

IX 

XXO 

xjdxx 

'XlOIXil  11 II 1 

Figure  14.  Black-board  chart  for  demonstrating  the  X-0  Series 

Test. 

each  “0”  in  the  top  chart,  and  then  wrote  (with  his  pointer) 
an  imaginary  “0”  in  the  four  remaining  spaces.  The  dem¬ 
onstrator  then  filled  in  the  four  “O’s”  with  crayon.  The 
experimenter  then  traced  the  first  “X”  by  tracing  a  semi¬ 
circle  above  the  chart  and  so  on.  The  demonstrator  then 
filled  in  every  other  space  with  an  “X”  following  the  ex¬ 
perimenter’s  elaborate  exercise.  The  demonstrator  then 
worked  out  the  remaining  problems  with  the  same  ritual, 
following  which  the  men  were  instructed  to  go  ahead. 

The  distribution  of  scores  of  the  X-0  series  test  is  shown 
in  Figure  15. 

The  army  writers  state  that:  “Beta  3  defies  interpreta¬ 
tion.”  (p.  638.)  We  know  that  the  test  was  devised  to  dup¬ 
licate  in  pictorial  form  the  number  series  completion  test 


40 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


Figure  15.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  X-0  Series  Test.  (From 
p.  627,  Memoir  XV.) 


in  alpha.  Aside  from  knowing  the  purpose  of  the  test,  we 
know  very  little  about  it.  My  own  guess  would  be  that  the 
first  five  or  six  items  were  entirely  too  easy,  and  that  if 
they  had  been  disregarded  in  the  scoring,  as  practice  items, 
and  six  more  items  added,  comparable  in  difficulty  to  the 
last  six  items,  the  distribution  would  have  been  satisfactory. 


1 

i* 

x  I  x !  x 

_ _ _ 

1  X 

X  X 

2 

X 

X 

X 

] — 
1* 

X 

3 

*o|xU 

* 

9 

0 

X 

o 

4 

XX 

X 

X 

X 

X 

5 

X|0 

X 

1* 

0 

X 

0 

X 

0 

6 

7 

8 

* 

X 

0  1  X 

i 

X 

0 

X 

X 

0 

X 

X 

c 

o 

0 

X,  X 

9 

0 

X  X 

0 

9 

X 

X 

XT 

*1 

X 

0 

0 

0 

X 

X 

0 

O'  0 

X 

X 

0 

9 

0 

9 

X 

0 

X 

X 

c 

X 

X 

0 

X 

X 

0 

X 

10 

X 

0 

X 

X 

0 

X 

0 

x  1 

X 

0 

X 

0 

11 

X 

0 

X  X 

o 

X 

X 

X 

0 

x!° 

X  X 

X 

X 

o 

X 

0 

12 

xix| 

xjx 

9 ' 0  \  c  1  X 

X 

0 

XX 

X  |  X  I  o 

o 

o 

X 

x| 

o\ 

P  XI*  Beta  Test  S:  X-O  Series. 


41 


42  AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 

Beta  Test  4. — Digit-Symbol 

Time  limit  :  2  minutes 

The  black-board  was  turned  to  the  chart  shown  in  Fig¬ 
ure  16.  The  experimenter  pointed  to  each  number  and  then 


TEST  4 


1 

2 

[3] 

[4 

5 

6 

7 

a 

\s\ 

Ml 

□ 

L 

EJ 

0 

A 

X 

3 

1 

Z 

3 

l 

1 

Z 

1 

3 

4 

7 

5 

4 

1 

6 

Figure  16.  Black-board  chart  for  demonstrating  the  Digit-Symbol 
Test. 


to  the  symbol  under  it.  The  experimenter  then  pointed  to 
the  number  3  in  the  sample,  then  to  the  space  below  it,  then 
to  the  number  3  in  the  key  above,  then  to  the  symbol  for 
3,  and  finally  traced  the  outline  of  the  symbol  for  3  in  the 
proper  space  in  the  sample.  This  procedure  was  then  re¬ 
peated  for  the  first  five  samples.  The  demonstrator  then 
went  to  the  black-board,  and  worked  through  the  process 
of  filling  in  the  symbols  under  the  figures,  touching  each 
figure  and  symbol  in  the  key  while  he  drew  the  proper  sym¬ 
bol  in  the  sample.  The  group  then  proceeded  to  fill  in  the 
symbols  on  the  test  blank. 

The  distribution  of  scores  of  the  digit-symbol  test  is 
shown  in  Figure  17. 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


43 


Figure  17.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  Digit-Symbol  Test.  (From 
p.  628,  Memoir  XV.) 


This  type  of  distribution  is  the  same  as  that  given  by  the 
eight  alpha  tests,  the  zero  scores  representing  failure  to 
understand  instructions,  and  the  distribution  being  fairly 
regular.  The  digit-symbol  test  is  a  standard  test,  and  the 
results  in  beta  are  entirely  satisfactory. 


3 

1 

2 

1 

3 

2 

1 

4 

2 

3 

5 

2 

9 

1 

4 

6 

3 

1 

5 

4 

2 

7 

6 

3 

8 

7 

2 

9 

5 

4 

6 

3 

7 

2 

8 

1 

9 

5 

8 

4 

7 

3 

8 

9 

5 

1 

9 

2 

8 

3 

7 

4 

6 

5 

9 

4 

8 

5 

7 

8 

4 


4'4 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE  45 

Beta  Test  5. — Number  Checking 
Time  limit  :  3  minutes 

The  black-board  was  turned  to  the  chart  shown  in  Fig¬ 
ure  18.  The  experimenter  pointed  first  to  the  6  in  the  left 


TEST 


62 . 

. ...  62 

59 . 

. . . .56 

327. .. . 

. .  .327 

249. .. . 

. ...  249 

1536. . . 

. . . . 1536 

3745. . . 

. . . . 3745 

45010. . 

. . . .45001 

62019 . . 

. . . . 62019 

Figure  18.  Black-board  chart  for  demonstrating  the 
Checking  Test. 


N  umber 


hand  column,  then  to  the  6  in  the  right  hand  column,  then 
to  the  2  in  the  left  hand  column  and  to  the  2  in  the  right 
hand  column,  nodded  his  head,  said,  kvYes,”  and  made  an 
imaginary  cross  on  the  dotted  line.  The  demonstrator  then 

O  i / 

made  an  “X”  on  the  line.  The  experimenter  repeated  the 
procedure  for  the  second  pair,  but  indicated  clearly,  by 
shaking  his  head  and  saying,  “No,”  that  the  9  and  the  G 
were  not  alike.  The  experimenter  then  repeated  the  pro¬ 
cedure  for  three  more  sets,  getting  the  men  in  the  room  to 


46 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


say, “Yes,”  if  the  pairs  were  identical.  The  demonstrator 
then  worked  out  the  remaining  items. 

The  results  of  the  number  checking  test  shown  in  Fig¬ 
ure  19,  give  the  same  distribution  characteristic  of  the 


TEST  5,  BETA 


Figure  19.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  Number  Checking  Test. 
(From  p.  628,  Memoir  XV .) 


alpha  tests.  The  instructions  were  clear  and  the  test  was  en¬ 
tirely  satisfactory.  This  test  is  an  adaptation  of  a  standard 
test  in  use  for  many  years. 


650  . 

.  650 

10243586  . . . 

10243586 

041  . 

.  044 

659012534  . 

.  6590211354 

2579  . 

.  2579 

388172902  . 

381872902 

3281  . 

.  3281 

631027594  . 

.  631027594 

65190 

.  55102 

2499901354  . 

.  2499901534 

39190  . 

.  39190 

2261059310  . 

.  2261659310 

658049  . 

650849 

2911038227  . 

.  2911038227 

3295017  . 

.  3290517 

313377752  . 

.  313377752 

63015991  . 

.  63019991 

1012938567  . 

.  1012938567 

39007106  . 

.  39007106 

7166220988  . 

.  7162220988 

69931087  . 

.  69931087 

3177628449 

.  3177682449 

251004818  . 

.  251004418 

468672663  . 

.  468672663 

299056013  . 

.  299056013 

9104529003  . 

.  9194529003 

36015992  . 

.  360155992 

3484657120  „ . 

3484657210 

3910066482  . 

.  391006482 

8588172556  . 

8581722556 

8510273301  .  . . 

.  8510273301 

3120166671  . 

.  3120166671 

263136990  . 

.  263136996 

7611348879  . 

.  76111345879 

451152903  . 

.  451152903 

26557239164  . 

.  26557239164 

3259016275  . 

.  3295016725 

8819002341  . 

8819002341 

682039144 

.  582039144 

6571018034  . 

.  6571018034 

61558529  . 

.  61588529 

38779762514  . 

.  38779765214 

211915883  . 

.  219915883 

39008126557  . 

.  39008126657 

670413822  . 

.  670143822 

75658100398  .  . 

75658100398 

17198591  . 

.  17198591 

41181900726  . 

41181900726 

36482991 

.  .  36482991 

6543920S17  . 

.  6543920871 

Plate  XIII.  Beta  Test  5:  Number  Checking. 


47 


48  AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 

Beta  Test  6. — Picture  Completion 

Time  limit  :  3  minutes 

The  black-board  was  turned  to  the  chart  shown  in  Fig¬ 
ure  20.  The  experimenter  pointed  to  the  hand  and  said, 


TEST  6 


Figure  20.  Black-board  chart  for  demonstrating  the  Picture  Com¬ 
pletion  Test. 

“Fix  it.”  The  demonstrator  looked  puzzled.  The  experi¬ 
menter  pointed  to  the  place  where  the  finger  was  missing, 
and  said,  “Fix  it;  fix  it.”  The  demonstrator  then  drew  the 
finger.  The  experimenter  then  pointed  to  the  fish,  and  the 
place  for  the  eye,  and  said, “Fix  it.”  After  the  demonstrator 
had  drawn  in  the  eye,  the  experimenter  pointed  to  each  of 
the  drawings  and  said,  “Fix  them  all.”  After  the  demon¬ 
strator  had  worked  out  all  the  remaining  drawings  the 
group  proceeded  to  complete  the  drawings  in  the  beta  blank. 

The  results  of  the  pictorial  completion  test  as  given  in 
Figure  21  show  an  excellent  distribution  of  the  same  general 
type  as  the  distribution  of  the  eight  alpha  tests.  The  num¬ 
ber  of  zero  scores  (12)  on  this  test  is  smaller  than  that  of 
any  other  test  in  the  entire  alpha-beta  series.  This  is  an 
excellent  test. 


Figure  21.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  Picture  Completion  Test. 
(From  p.  628,  Memoir  XV.) 


Plate  XIV.  Beta  Test  6:  Picture  Completion. 


50 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE  51 

Beta  Test  7. — Geometrical  Construction 

Time  limit  :  2j/2  minutes 

The  black-board  was  turned  to  the  chart  shown  in  Fig¬ 
ure  22.  The  experimenter  pointed  to  the  square  on  the 


TEST  7 


Figure  22.  Black-board  chart  for  demonstrating  the  Geometrical 
Construction  Test. 


black-board,  and  taking  two  pieces  of  cardboard  the  same 
size  as  the  drawings  at  the  left  of  the  square,  fitted  them 
on  the  two  drawings.  He  then  fitted  the  two  pieces  of  card¬ 
board  together  on  the  square  to  show  that  they  would  fill 
it,  and  motioned  to  the  demonstrator  who  drew,  in  the 
square,  the  lines  indicating  the  manner  in  which  the  two 
pieces  would  fit.  This  procedure  was  repeated  for  the  next 
two  samples.  The  demonstrator  then  worked  out  the  last 
sample. 

The  responses  given  in  Figure  23  show,  aside  from  the  zero 
scores,  a  peculiar  distribution,  the  form  of  which  may  be 
interpreted  by  assuming  that  the  test  was  too  hard  in  its 


52 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


Figure  23.  Distribution  of  scores  of  the  Geometrical  Construction 
Test.  (From  p.  628,  Memoir  XV .) 


beginning  and  too  easy  at  the  end.  We  can  picture  the  dis¬ 
tribution  of  Test  7  as  shown  in  Figure  23  as  having  come 
from  the  middle  range  of  a  more  complete  test  such  as 
Test  5,  Figure  19.  If  we  cut  the  distribution  of  Test  5  from 
10  to  19,  we  can  picture  the  range  in  which  Test  7  was 
working.  We  may  assume,  then,  that  the  inclusion  of  a  few 
easier  items  and  five  or  ten  harder  ones  might  have  given 
a  distribution  similar  to  that  of  the  alpha  tests.  The  test  is 
faulty  because  of  the  limitation  of  range  at  both  ends. 


1  r 

2/\ 

\ 

X  - 

3  - 

r 

z> 

7 

5 

u 

8K  N 

\l  / 

> 

<  > 

8  r— 

ti 

V 

A 

10 

— 

Plate  XV.  Beta  Test  7:  Geometrical  Construction. 

53 


SECTION  III 


THE  INDIVIDUAL  EXAMINATIONS 

The  greatest  contribution  of  the  army  psychologists  to 
the  development  of  mental  tests  was  that  of  creating  the 
two  group  tests,  alpha  and  beta,  that  have  been  discussed. 
Methods  of  individual  examining  had  been  in  existence  for 
several  years.  The  basic  series  of  tests  of  the  individual  ex¬ 
amination  was  the  Stanford  Revision  of  the  Binet-Simon 
scale,  which  had  become  a  standard  measurement  and 
needs  no  description  here.  Persons  interested  in  this  method 
should  read  Terman’s1  book  on  the  Stanford  scale.  A 
method  of  abbreviating  the  Stanford-Binet  scale  was 
worked  out  in  the  army,  and  proved  satisfactory. 

The  distribution  of  the  scores  in  terms  of  the  “mental 
ages”  of  the  653  men  in  the  special  experimental  group  of 
1047  cases  who  took  the  Stanford-Binet  examination  was 
as  follows: 


“Mental  Ages” .  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  1G  17  18  19 

No.  of  eases .  1  2  1  22  62  66  G9  81  69  77  63  54  47  34  5 


A  rough  inspection  of  these  figures  shows  that  they  give 
us  the  Gaussian  normal  distribution.  The  results  obtained 
from  the  Stanford-Binet  examination  may  be  taken  as  en¬ 
tirely  reliable  without  question. 

One  difficulty  in  the  popular  interpretation  of  the  results 
on  the  Stanford-Binet  scale,  and  other  scales  constructed 
on  the  same  principle,  is  the  unfortunate  use  of  the  term 
“mental  age,”  a  term  first  used  by  Binet  and  subsequently 

XL.  M.  Terman.  The  Measurement  of  Intelligence.  Boston,  1916,  pp.  362. 


54 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


55 


used  in  this  country.  The  term  “mental  age”  has  no  signi¬ 
ficance  whatsoever  aside  from  the  particular  scale  from 
which  it  was  derived.  A  person  might  have  a  “mental  age” 
of  13  on  the  Stanford-Binet  scale,  of  11  on  Goddard’s 
translation  of  Binet’s  1908  scale,  of  12  on  Goddard’s  1911 
scale,  and  so  forth  for  every  scale  in  use.  The  term  “mental 
age”  really  means  a  score  on  a  particular  series  of  tests. 
Through  rather  general  usage,  the  Stanford-Binet  scale  is 
being  adopted  in  this  country  as  a  standard. 

The  Stanford-Binet  scale  was  constructed  out  of  some 
90  different  tests  arranged  for  different  age  levels,  six  for 
each  age  level  from  3  to  10,  eight  for  12,  six  for  14,  six  for 
16  or  “average  adult,”  six  for  18  or  “superior  adult,”  and 
sixteen  alternative  tests  interspersed  throughout  the  scale. 
A  person  obtains  his  total  score  or  “mental  age”  by  taking 
all  the  tests  in  perhaps  four  or  five  age  level  groups.  For 
instance,  if  a  person  passed  all  the  tests  at  the  9  year  level, 
five  out  of  the  six  at  the  10  year  level,  four  out  of  the  eight 
at  the  12  year  level,  two  out  of  the  six  at  the  14  year  level, 
and  failed  all  tests  above  14,  his  total  score  or  “mental  age” 
would  be  ll^.  In  assigning  a  given  test  to  any  age  level, 
all  the  tests  were  first  tried  out,  and  the  positions  of  the 
tests  juggled  about  so  that  the  ten  year  old  children  tested 
had  an  average  score  of  10,  the  eleven  year  old  children  an 
average  score  of  11,  etc. 

When  we  say  that  a  person  has  a  “mental  age”  of  eight 
on  the  Stanford-Binet  scale,  we  do  not  mean  that  he  has 
the  mentality  of  a  child  of  eight,  but  that  he  made  a  total 
score  on  that  scale  equal  to  that  of  the  average  eight  year 
child  tested  in  the  particular  group  on  which  the  scale  was 
standardized.  In  all,  about  1000  children,  approximately 
equally  distributed  in  the  chronological  ages  from  5  to  14, 
formed  the  basis  of  the  Stanford  standardization.  This 
standardization  is  a  very  excellent  method  of  measuring 


56 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


intelligence,  and  worked  very  well  with  our  army  adult 
group  as  shown  by  the  score  distribution  of  the  653  men 
in  the  special  experimental  group  given  above,  but  we 
should  always  regard  the  term  “mental  age”  as  a  score , 
not  as  a  diagnosis. 

By  correlating  the  alpha  test  with  the  Stanford-Binet 
scale,  we  can  find  the  approximately  equivalent  score,  or 
“mental  age”  for  each  possible  alpha  score.  The  operation 
resembles  that  of  expressing  values  sterling  in  dollars.  One 
frequently  hears  the  statement  that  the  army  tests  proved 
that  the  average  citizen  of  this  country  has  a  mental  age 
equivalent  to  that  of  a  child  of  thirteen.  Nothing  could  be 
more  ridiculous.  It  is  true  that  the  average  score  of  a  sample 
of  93,955  soldiers  representing  the  entire  white  draft,  when 
translated  into  the  Stanford-Binet  scale,  is  13.14.  This 
means  that  the  approximately  equivalent  score  on  the 
Stanford-Binet  is  13.14.  To  say  that  the  average  citizen 
has  a  mentality  of  the  child  of  13  is  putting  the  cart  before 
the  horse,  for  we  are  grading  93,955  people,  and  by  infer¬ 
ence  the  entire  country,  on  a  standard  fixed  by  some  82 
fourteen  year  old  children  who  happened  to  be  tested  in 
California. 

In  addition  to  the  1000  children  on  whom  the  Stanford- 
Binet  scale  was  standardized,  the  tests  at  the  16  year 
“average  adult”  level,  and  the  18  year  “superior  adult” 
level  were  standardized  on  30  business  men,  150  “migrat¬ 
ing”  unemployed  men,  150  adolescent  delinquents,  and  50 
high  school  students.  It  is  thus  seen  that  the  Stanford- 
Binet  standardization  rests  on  a  number  of  cases  too  small 
to  upset  the  army  standards  based  on  93,955  cases. 

The  term  “mental  age”  is  bad  scientific  slang  for  a  total 
score.  Psychologists  are  gradually  abandoning  the  age 
standardization  of  tests.  At  the  same  time,  publicists  in 
various  fields,  although  novices  in  psychology,  are  drawing 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


57 


rather  vicious  conclusions  from  “mental  age”  findings.  It 
is  an  unfortunate  situation. 

The  methods  used  in  creating  and  standardizing  psycho¬ 
logical  tests  are  entirely  empirical,  and  therefore  rather 
hard  to  explain  to  the  layman,  who  is  familiar  only  with 
the  “school  teacher”  type  of  examination.  The  school 
teacher  writes  an  examination,  and  lets  it  stand  as  an  ab¬ 
solute  measure.  The  psychologist  makes  an  examination, 
tries  it  out,  and  judges  each  individual  member  of  the 
group  as  compared  with  the  other  members  of  the  group. 
As  more  and  more  people  are  examined  his  standards  of 
judgment  become  more  reliable.  In  other  words,  his  stand¬ 
ards  are  those  that  he  gets,  not  those  that  he  thinks  he 
ought  to  get.  Therefore,  instead  of  deploring  the  fact  that 
the  average  person  has  a  “mental  age”  of  thirteen,  we  can 
simply  say  that  the  conversion  of  the  results  of  the  army 
test  into  the  Stanford-Binet  scale  shows  an  average  score 
of  13,  and  that  this  is  the  score  to  be  expected  from  the 
average  adult. 

Another  very  common  mis-statement  prevalent  con¬ 
cerning  the  army  results  is  that  they  proved  that  24.9% 
of  the  drafted  men  were  illiterate.  Among  the  men  sent  to 
examination  beta  would  be  found,  first,  English  speaking 
illiterates,  second,  non-English  speaking  individuals,  either 
literate  or  illiterate  in  their  own  tongue,  third,  defectives, 
and  fourth,  cases  accidentally  sent  to  the  wrong  examina¬ 
tion.  The  method  of  selecting  men  for  beta  varied  from 
camp  to  camp,  and  sometimes  from  week  to  week  in  the 
same  camp.  There  was  no  established  criterion  of  literacy, 
and  no  uniform  method  of  selecting  illiterates.  In  a  group 
of  1,552,256  men  examined,  386,196  or  24.9%  were,  for 
some  reason  or  other,  sent  to  beta.  The  army  definition  of 
literacy  as  “ ability  to  read  and  understand  newspapers  and 
write  letters  home ”  can  not  he  identified  with  the  fact  of  having 


58 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


been  sent  to  beta.  The  statistics  of  the  army  examinations 
give  us  no  accurate  figures  on  the  percentage  of  illiteracy. 

The  individual  examination  for  illiterates  and  non- 
English  speaking,  the  performance  scale,  was  a  composite 
scale,  the  tests  of  which  were  drawn  from  workers  in  vari¬ 
ous  fields,  particularly  from  H.  A.  Knox,  who  had  worked 
on  non-verbal  performance  tests  at  Ellis  Island,  R.  Pintner 
and  D.  G.  Paterson,  who  had  developed  a  scale  of  perform¬ 
ance  tests,  William  Healy,  H.  H.  Goddard,  and  other  in¬ 
vestigators.  The  performance  examination  was  given  some¬ 
times  as  the  long  scale  (8  or  10  tests)  and  sometimes  as  the 
short  scale  (5  tests).  The  short  scale  showed  a  correlation 
of  0.97  with  the  long  scale,  so  that  the  reduction  of  the 
number  of  tests  to  save  time  in  examining  was  entirely  jus¬ 
tified.  A  short-cut  method  was  also  used  in  giving  the 
Stanford-Binet  examination  which  was  quite  satisfactory 
(correlation  0.91).  The  short  performance  scale  showed  a 
correlation  of  0.84  with  the  Stanford-Binet  scale.  The 
Yerkes-Bridges  point  scale  which  was  sometimes  used  in¬ 
stead  of  the  Stanford-Binet  was  also  abbreviated,  and  the 
abbreviated  point  scale  showed  a  correlation  of  0.934  with 
the  complete  point  scale.  In  general,  the  methods  of  indi¬ 
vidual  examining  in  use  were  quite  reliable,  and  so  closely 
related  to  the  Stanford-Binet  scale  that  the  results  could 
be  converted  into  Stanford-Binet  scores  without  any  ap¬ 
preciable  source  of  error.  In  all  calculations  in  this  study, 
scores  from  the  point  scale  and  the  performance  scale  ex¬ 
aminations  have  been  treated  by  converting  into  Stanford- 
Binet  scores. 


SECTION  IV 


RELIABILITY  OF  THE  MEASURES 

The  reader,  who  has  followed  the  discussion  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual  tests  through  the  preceding  pages,  will  be  convinced 
that  most  of  the  tests  used  wrere  satisfactory.  In  general, 
the  eight  alpha  tests,  the  Stanford-Binet  scale,  and  tests 
4,5,6  and  7  of  beta  gave  complete  or  limited  distributions 
which  approximated  the  Gaussian  normal  curve,  Figure  24. 


Figure  24.  The  normal  distribution  curve.  A  type  of  distribution 
given  by  all  alpha  tests,  tests  4,  5,  6  and  7  of  beta,  and  the  Stan¬ 
ford-Binet  scale. 

Beta  test  3  gave  a  distribution  which  could  not  be  inter¬ 
preted,  while  beta  tests  1  and  2,  being  too  easy,  gave  a 
skewed  distribution  of  the  approximate  form  of  the  curve 
shown  in  Figure  25. 

It  is  not  necessary  here  to  enter  into  any  lengthy  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  method  of  converting  the  results  of  these 
sixteen  tests  into  the  combined  scale.  The  reader  interested 
in  the  statistical  methods  used  is  referred  to  Chapter  2, 
Part  3  of  Memoir  XV  (pp.  573-657).  If  the  reader  is  satis- 


59 


60 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


fled  that  13  of  the  16  tests  give  distributions  conforming 
in  a  general  way  to  that  shown  in  Figure  24,  that  is  all  that 
is  necessary.  The  tests  can  very  obviously  be  equated,  and 
a  combined  scale  constructed.  By  treating  each  of  the  eight 
tests  of  alpha,  each  of  the  seven  tests  of  beta,  and  the 
Stanford-Binet  test  as  different  measuring  scales,  the  com¬ 
bined  scale  was  evolved,  based  on  the  inter-relations  of 
these  sixteen  scales  as  shown  by  refined  methods  of  cor¬ 
relation. 


Figure  25.  A  skewed  distribution  curve.  A  type  of  distribution 
given  by  beta  tests  1  and  2. 


The  army  results  are  reported  in  tables  showing  the 
number  of  men  scoring  in  certain  class  intervals,  i.  e.  be¬ 
tween  0  and  4,  5  and  9,  10  and  14,  etc.,  up  to  the  interval 
205  to  212  on  alpha;  between  0  and  4,  5  and  9,  10  and  14, 
etc.,  up  to  115-118  on  beta.  In  the  same  way,  the  scores  in 
other  tests  are  reported  in  class  intervals.  The  study  of  the 
1047  cases  showed  how  individuals  falling  in  each  of  the 
class  intervals  were  distributed  on  the  theoretical  com¬ 
bined  scale,  i.  e.,  it  was  possible  to  find  the  combinations 
of  tests  from  which  individuals  in  each  class  interval  would 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


61 


obtain  their  scores.  The  combined  scale  was  therefore  built 
empirically  on  the  results  of  the  1047  cases.  Tables  were 
constructed  on  this  basis  showing  how  individuals  falling 
in  each  class  interval  of  each  of  the  three  examinations 
should  be  redistributed  on  the  combined  scale.  It  is  then 
possible  to  take  a  group  which  had  been  examined  partly 
by  alpha,  partly  by  beta,  and  partly  by  the  Stanford- 
Binet  examination,  and  determine  how  that  group  would 
have  scored  on  the  combined  scale  if  all  individuals  in  the 
group  had  been  given  all  three  examinations.  The  com¬ 
bined  scale  is  the  most  accurate  method  available  for  treat¬ 
ing  the  data  derived  from  the  army  examinations. 

In  this  study  the  data  from  the  principal  sample  have 
been  re-figured  on  the  combined  scale  by  the  method  de¬ 
scribed  on  page  652  of  Memoir  XV : 

“In  each  group  the  alpha  distribution  was  distributed 
on  the  combined  scale  by  the  use  of  table  159,  the  beta  dis¬ 
tributions  by  table  162,  and  the  Stanford-Binet  mental  age 
distribution  by  table  163.  The  performance  scale  distribu¬ 
tions  and  the  point  scale  distributions  were  handled  in  the 
following  way:  the  performance  distributions  were  first 
transformed  into  Stanford-Binet  mental  age  distributions 
by  the  use  of  the  regression  formula: 

0.50  Performance  score  +  72 
12 

This  formula  was  derived  from  the  correlation  of  a  sample 
of  350  cases  who  had  both  Stanford-Binet  mental  age  rat¬ 
ings  and  performance  scale  ratings.  The  point  scale  distri¬ 
butions  were  transformed  into  Stanford-Binet  mental  age 
distributions  by  the  use  of  the  table  in  the  examiner’s  guide, 
Part  I,  pages  195ff.  These  transformations  only  approxi¬ 
mate  the  truth,  but  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  performance 


Mental  Age  (in  years) 


62 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


and  point  scale  cases  constitute  less  than  3  per  cent  of  any 
group  handled  it  would  take  a  considerable  error  in  trans¬ 
formation  seriously  to  affect  the  whole.” 

The  conversion  of  the  data  of  the  principal  sample  into 
the  combined  scale  reported  in  Memoir  XV  contains  some 
inaccuracies.  The  statistical  labor  involved  in  the  evolution 
of  the  combined  scale  was  so  great  that  the  method  was  not 
available  until  the  report  was  practically  completed.  The 
calculations  were  made  by  different  individuals  working 
under  pressure,  and  errors  were  unavoidable.  It  has  there¬ 
fore  been  considered  worth  while  to  repeat  these  calcula¬ 
tions  at  leisure,  checking  each  operation  carefully  and 
carrying  the  analysis  of  some  of  the  groups  of  the  principal 
sample  further  than  that  reported  in  Memoir  XV. 

It  is  now  necessary  to  review  very  briefly  the  results  of 
checking  the  army  mental  tests  against  outside  criteria. 
We  might  have  a  measuring  scale,  all  elements  of  which 
gave  perfect  score  distributions,  and  which  were  highly 
inter-correlated,  but  even  then  we  would  need  outside  cri¬ 
teria  to  prove  that  we  were  measuring  intelligence.  Enough 
material  is  already  on  hand  to  prove  that  the  army  tests 
were  reliable  measures  of  intelligence.  In  the  following  dis¬ 
cussion  we  will  cite  several  instances. 

The  best  proof  of  the  validity  of  the  test  series  comes 
from  a  study  of  the  relation  between  the  intelligence  rat¬ 
ings  and  education.  The  correlation  of  the  combined  scale 
with  reported  school  grade  was  0.75  (based  on  653  cases 
from  the  special  experimental  group  of  1047  men).  The 
correlation  between  alpha  scores  and  schooling  for  this 
group  was  0.75,  the  eight  tests  of  alpha  separately  com¬ 
pared  with  schooling  all  showing  correlations  between  0.60 
and  0.74.  The  correlation  with  beta  total  scores  and  school¬ 
ing  for  this  same  group  was  0.67,  and  that  between  Stanford- 
Binet  scores  and  schooling  0.65.  These  correlations  show 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


63 


a  positive  relationship  between  intelligence  as  measured  by 
the  various  methods  and  years  of  schooling. 

Very  few  people  realize  the  severity  of  the  elimination 
process  that  goes  on  from  year  to  year  in  our  schools  and 
colleges.  The  study  of  the  schooling  of  the  native  born  white 
draft,  as  sampled  by  upward  of  80,000  cases,  showed  the 
following  startling  facts:  of  every  thousand  native  born 
recruits  who  entered  the  first  grade,  970  remained  in  school 
till  grade  two,  940  till  grade  three,  905  till  grade  four, 
830  till  grade  five,  735  till  grade  six,  630  till  grade  seven, 
and  490  till  grade  eight;  230  of  them  entered  high  school, 
170  kept  on  till  the  end  of  the  second  year,  120  till  the  end 
of  the  third  year,  and  95  of  the  original  thousand  graduated 
from  high  school;  50  of  these  entered  college,  40  kept  on 
till  the  end  of  the  second  year  of  college,  20  till  the  end  of 
the  third  year,  and  10  graduated.  It  is,  of  course,  impossible 
to  determine  how  many  of  those  that  leave  school  leave  on 
account  of  lack  of  pecuniary  opportunity,  or  on  account 
of  lack  of  intelligence.  It  is  ridiculous  to  assume  that  1000 
men  in  1000  have  sufficient  intelligence  to  graduate  from 
college,  and  equally  absurd  to  assume  that  only  10  in  1000 
have  such  a  high  intellectual  endowment  that  they  can 
graduate  from  college.  Rut,  inasmuch  as  we  can  not  deny 
the  intellectual  elimination,  we  must  expect  a  very  high 
correlation  between  intelligence  and  schooling. 

The  army  tests  uniformly  show  officers  superior  to  en¬ 
listed  men.  This  is  to  be  expected,  for  officers  were  selected 
for  ability.  Nevertheless,  one  may  perhaps  contend  that 
the  high  scores  of  the  officers  were  due  to  superior  educa¬ 
tion  and  not  to  greater  intelligence.  Very  nearly  half  of 
the  officers  were  college  graduates,  and  another  quarter  had 
begun  but  not  completed  a  college  course.  The  objection 
that  the  superior  scores  of  officers  were  due  to  education 
rather  than  intelligence  may  be  effectively  answered  by  a 


64 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


crucial  test,  which  was  made  by  the  army  investigators 
when  they  compared  the  alpha  scores  of  660  officers  who 
had  never  gone  beyond  the  eighth  grade  in  school  with  the 
alpha  scores  of  13,943  native  born  recruits  all  of  whom  had 
gone  beyond  the  eighth  grade.  The  results  of  this  comparison 
are  reported  (p.  779  of  Memoir  XV)  as  follows:  “Every 
recruit  in  the  recruit  group  has  had  more  schooling  than 
any  officer  in  the  officer  group;  the  least  educated  recruit 
in  the  group  has  had  a  longer  education  than  the  best  edu¬ 
cated  officer  included.  And  the  group  of  officers  neverthe¬ 
less  makes  a  slightly  higher  record  on  examination  alpha. 
It  is  evident  then  that  the  examination  is  measuring  other 
qualities,  in  which  officers  stand  above  recruits,  to  a 
greater  extent  than  it  is  measuring  education.”  The  distri¬ 
butions  of  the  alpha  scores  of  these  two  groups  are  shown 
in  Figure  26.  In  general,  the  comparison  of  the  army  test 
scores  with  education  indicates  that  the  tests  are  genuine 
measures  of  intelligence. 

The  army  investigators  were,  of  course,  called  upon  early 
in  the  war  to  prove  that  the  tests  they  recommended  were 
genuine  tests  of  intelligence.  For  the  assistance  of  army 
examiners  and  administrative  officers  having  before  them 
the  problem  of  the  assignment  of  men,  a  small  pamphlet, 
Army  Mental  Tests  (Washington,  D.  C.,  1918,  pp.  24) 
was  prepared,  presenting  in  graphic  form  the  results  of 
several  different  methods  used  in  some  of  the  camps  for 
establishing  the  reliability  of  the  tests  by  checking  them 
against  outside  criteria.  In  the  following  pages,  some  of  the 
charts  from  this  booklet  have  been  reproduced,  and  the 
method  of  interpreting  the  charts  is  described  briefly.  All 
of  the  methods  reported  use  the  letter  grade  classification 
(A,  B,  C,  etc.),  which  is  less  accurate  than  the  combined 
scale  method  used  in  this  study,  but  they  tend  to  show  in 


OFFICERS 


Figure  26.  Examination  alpha  as  independent  of  education.  Com¬ 
parison  of  alpha  scores  of  officers  of  eighth  grade  schooling  or 
less  with  alpha  scores  of  native  born  white  recruits  of  ninth 
grade  schooling  or  more.  “Although  these  groups  overlap  in 
schooling  not  at  all;  the  officers  make  nevertheless  slightly  higher 
scores  on  alpha.”  (Quotation  from  p.  779;  and  figure  from  p. 
778;  Memoir  XV.) 


65 


66 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


a  general  way  the  trend  of  the  results,  and  that  is  all  that 
is  necessary  in  this  case. 

In  the  long  run,  we  should  expect  a  small  positive  cor¬ 
relation  between  intelligence  and  rank.  Intelligence  is  by 
no  means  the  sole  determiner  of  military  success,  but  since 
it  is  one  element  in  the  complex  of  abilities  required,  we 
would  expect  to  find  a  general  tendency  toward  high  scores 
with  higher  ranks.  Figure  27,  which  is  reproduced  from  the 


ENLISTED  MEN  (13792) — Relatively  Illiterate 
ENLISTED  MEN  (82936) — Literate 
CORPORALS  (4023) 

SERGEANTS  (3393) 

O.  T.  C.  (9240) 


Figure  27.  Distribution  of  intelligence  scores  according  to  rank. 
The  officers  are  above  the  candidates  in  the  Officers’  Training 
Camps  (O.  T.  C.),  the  candidate  officers  are  above  the  sergeants, 
the  sergeants  above  the  corporals,  and  the  corporals  above  the 
enlisted  men.  (From  p.  8  of  pamphlet,  Army  Mental  Tests.) 


booklet  referred  to,  shows  the  distribution  of  scores  of  vari¬ 
ous  ranks  on  the  rough  A,  B,  C  scale.  The  officers  form  a 
group  quite  distinct  from  the  general  run  of  enlisted  men, 
and  they  are  also  above  the  candidates  for  commissions  in 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


rr 


67 


the  Officers’  Training  Camp  (O.  T.  C.)  group.  The  sergeants 
are  above  the  corporals,  and  the  corporals  above  the  en¬ 
listed  men. 

The  Officers’  Training  Camps  give  an  additional  check 
on  the  intelligence  tests.  In  the  schools  examined,  the  can¬ 
didates  were  recommended  for  a  period  of  special  training 
for  commissions  by  the  regimental  organizations.  The  selec¬ 
tion  of  the  candidates  was  very  rigid,  then,  in  the  first  in¬ 
stance.  Figure  28  shows  roughly  the  results  of  applying  the 


A  B  C+  C  C—  D 


PERCENT 

SUCCESS 


PERCENT 

FAILURE 


O.  T.  C. 

1375  MEN 


Figure  28.  Success  in  Officers’  Training  Camps  as  predicted  by 
examination  alpha.  Each  vertical  bar  represents  all  (100%)  of 
the  candidates  who  tested  A,  B,  C-j-,  etc.  All  men  above  the  hori¬ 
zontal  line  eventually  received  commissions,  and  all  men  below 
failed.  91^3%  of  the  men  above  C-f-  received  commissions. 
58p3  of  the  men  below  C-f-  failed.  (From  p.  9  of  pamphlet, 
Army  Menial  Tests.) 


68 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


army  tests  to  the  training  camp  groups.  Each  solid  vertical 
bar  represents  all  the  men  of  a  given  letter  grade.  There 
were,  of  course,  more  A  and  B  men  than  C—  and  D  men, 
but  for  purposes  of  comparison  each  letter  group  is  treated 
as  a  whole  (100%).  All  men  above  the  horizontal  line  re¬ 
ceived  commissions  at  the  close  of  the  Officers’  Training 
Camp,  and  all  the  men  below  the  line  failed  to  receive  com¬ 
missions.  Figure  28  shows  clearly  that  about  nine  out  of 
ten  A  and  B  men  eventually  received  commissions,  while 
for  C—  and  D  men  the  chances  were  very  slight. 

Figure  29  shows  in  a  general  way  the  manner  in  which 
groups  selected  by  various  outside  criteria  contributed  to 
the  upper  end  of  the  intelligence  scale  (A  and  B),  and  to 
the  lower  end  of  the  scale  (C— ,  D  and  E).  We  are  already 
familiar  with  the  differences  between  ranks  shown  in  this 
figure.  Sixty  company  commanders  were  asked  to  designate 
their  ten  “best”  and  ten  “poorest”  privates.  The  results  of 
this  comparison  of  the  ten  “best”  and  ten  “poorest”  pri¬ 
vates  also  appears  in  Figure  29.  The  other  two  classifica¬ 
tions,  “men  of  low  military  value,”  and  “unteachable  men” 
represent  a  type  of  officers’  rating.  In  general  the  test  re¬ 
sults  check  with  officers’  ratings  independently  made. 

The  results  presented,  showing  the  relation  between  rank 
and  intelligence,  and  officers’  ratings  and  intelligence,  indi¬ 
cate  clearly  a  certain  positive  relationship  between  tests 
and  military  success.  Recognizing  the  fact  that  intelligence 
is  only  one  factor  tending  to  produce  military  success,  we 
accept  the  results  of  checking  the  tests  against  military  cri¬ 
teria  as  additional  proof  that  the  tests  are  genuine  measures 
of  intelligence. 

A  rough  but  rather  interesting  check  of  the  army  in¬ 
telligence  tests  may  be  made  by  glancing  at  the  scores  of 
men  classified  by  occupations.  Figure  30  gives  the  range  of 
the  intelligence  scores  of  the  middle  50%  of  various  occu- 


A  AND  B 


D,  D~,  E  C+ ,  C,  C — 


COMMISSIONED 

8819 


OFFICERS 


O.  T 

I 


.  S.  STUDENTS 
9240 


SERGEANTS 

3393 


I 


CORPORALS 

4093 


TEN  BEST  PRIVATES 

GOG 


WHITE  RECRUITS 
77299 


L 


]! 


DISCIPLINARY  CASES 
491  Camp  Dix 

czzzzzi  i 


“TEN  POOREST”  PRIVATES 
582 


1 


“MEN  OF  LOW  MILITARY  VALUE” 


147  Camp  Custer 

r  i  i 


UNTEACHABLE  MEN 
255  Camp  Hancock 

CZD 

Figure  29.  Comparison  of  army  tests  records  with  various  inde¬ 
pendent  criteria.  The  distributions  of  scores  by  ranks  are  shown 
in  another  way  in  Figure  27.  The  men  were  rated  as  “ten  best,” 
“ten  poorest,”  “of  low  military  value,”  and  “unteachable”  by 
their  officers.  The  chart  shows  a  close  correspondence  between 
the  brief  psychological  examinations  and  officers’  judgments 
made  after  weeks  of  observation.  (From  p.  10  of  pamphlet, 
Army  Mental  Tests.) 


69 


L-P-  1 


J  9—  1 


1  c  +  I 


B 


C- 


1 


Laborer  . . 
Gen.  miner 

Teamster  . 
Barber  . . . 


Horseshoer  .... 
Bricklayer . 

Coolc  .  . . 

Baker . 

Painter . 

Gen.  blacksmith. 

Gen.  carpenter. . 
Butcher  . 


Gen.  machinist. 
Hand  riveter  . . 


\  Tel.  and  tel.  lineman  . . . 

Gen.  pipefitter . 

Plumber  - . 

Tool  and  gauge  maker. 

Gunsmith . 

Gen.  mechanic . 

Gen.  auto  repairman  . . 
*Auto  engine  mechanic  . 

Auto  assembler . 

Ship  carpenter  . 

Telephone  operator  _. . . 


C  < 


Concrete  const,  foreman 
Stock-keeper  . . . . 

Photographer . 

Telegrapher  . 

R.  R.  clerk . 

Filing  clerk . 

Gen.  clerk . 


Army  nurse 
Bookkeeper  . 


B 


Dental  officer . 

Mechanical  draftsman 

Accountant . 

Civil  engineer . 

Medical  officer . 


■^Engineer  officer _. . . . . 

~  |  3 - |  “ 


B 


Figure  30.  Success  in  civil  occupations  compared  with  army  test 
records.  The  figure  shows  in  a  general  way  the  correlation  be¬ 
tween  intelligence  as  measured  by  the  army  tests  and  intelli¬ 
gence  as  indicated  by  position  in  civil  life.  (From  p.  829, 
Memoir  XV.) 


70 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


71 


pational  groups,  the  position  of  the  man  half  way  up  or 
down  the  scale  being  marked  by  a  short  vertical  line.  In 
some  of  the  occupational  groups,  the  number  of  cases  is 
small,  and  the  classification  itself  may  be  at  fault  in  many 
instances,  but  the  chart  nevertheless  shows  a  general  ten¬ 
dency  of  the  sort  we  should  expect  to  find,  for  a  process  of 
intellectual  selection  occurs  in  industry  which  is  just  as 
rigid  as  that  occurring  in  our  public  schools. 

We  have  briefly  inspected  the  different  sorts  of  evidence 
from  independent  fields  which  indicate  that  the  army  tests 
were  genuine  measures  of  intelligence.  Further  discussion 
of  this  point  is  unnecessary.  The  army  tests  were  not  in¬ 
fallible,  and  mistakes  in  classifying  men  were  undoubtedly 
made,  but  the  tests  were  satisfactory  rough  measures. 
When  used  in  comparing  groups  as  the  tests  are  in  this 
study,  their  reliability  is  increased,  for  errors  in  measure¬ 
ment  would  tend  to  equalize  in  each  group.  We  should  ex¬ 
pect  the  same  percentage  of  error  in  classifying  recruits 
born  in  Russia  as  we  should  recruits  born  in  Sweden.  Thus 
we  use  the  tests  as  general  measures  of  group  tendencies, 
and  as  group  measurements  the  tests  have  a  sufficiently 
high  degree  of  reliability  to  make  positive  conclusions 
possible. 

In  the  foregoing  pages  the  army  tests  have  been  de¬ 
scribed  briefly,  the  method  of  treating  the  results  from  vari¬ 
ous  examinations  bv  the  combined  scale  reviewed,  certain 
misconceptions  discussed,  and  a  fewT  bits  of  supporting 
evidence  assembled.  Persons  interested  in  a  further  study 

t / 

of  the  tests  should  consult  a  little  book  by  Yoakum  and 
\erkes1,  or,  Memoir  XV.  We  may  now  proceed  to  analyze 
American  intelligence  by  treating  the  psychological  exam¬ 
inations  made  in  the  army  as  a  mental  census  of  the 
population  of  this  country. 

JC.  S.  Yoakum  and  R.  M.  Yerkes.  Army  Mental  Tests.  New  York,  1920,  pp.  203 


PART  II 

STATISTICAL  ANALYSIS  OF  THE 
ARMY  TEST  RESULTS 


PART  II.  SECTION  I 


THE  PRINCIPAL  SAMPLE 

All  results  from  the  psychological  examinations  in  the 
camps  were  sent  to  Washington.  It  was  impracticable  as 
well  as  undesirable  to  tabulate  the  results  in  the  case  of 
every  man  examined.  An  intelligent  selection  or  sampling 
of  cases  will  give  results  more  nearly  typical  of  the  country 
at  large,  than  the  entire  group  tested,  which  would  be  un¬ 
duly  weighted  for  the  more  populous  States,  for  camps 
giving  the  greatest  number  of  examinations,  particular 
draft  quotas,  etc.  In  order  to  obtain  a  sample  for  the  white 
draft  and  the  negro  draft,  cases  were  ‘ 'randomly”  (or  better, 
impartially)  selected  in  accordance  with  certain  definite 
principles.  The  groups  were  as  follows: 

Group  I:  White  draft,  pro-rated,  by  States.  .  .  .  41,278 

Selected  from  15  National  Army 
camps,  according  to  the  State  from 
which  drafted,  and  according  to  the 
ratio  of  one  recruit  per  thousand 
white  male  population. 

Group  II:  White  draft,  additional,  by  States.  .  .  14,684 

Additional  selection  of  cases  in¬ 
tended  to  bring  the  total  represen¬ 
tation  from  each  State  up  to  1,000 
cases. 

Group  III:  White  draft,  additional,  by  camps.  .  .  40,392 

Additional  selection  of  cases  in¬ 
tended  to  bring  the  entire  samp¬ 
ling  of  the  white  draft  up  to  ap¬ 
proximately  100,000  cases. 


75 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 

IV:  Negro  draft,  pro-rated,  by  States.  .  .  .  19,992 
Selected  in  the  same  manner  as 
Group  I. 

V:  Negro  draft,  additional,  for  Northern 

States .  5,400 

Chosen  to  represent  the  negro  draft 
of  the  north. 

groups  were  selected  to  meet  other  problems  as 

VI:  White  officers . 15,528 

Selected  proportionately  to  their 
occurrence  in  different  arms  of  the 
service,  with  some  additions  to  sup¬ 
plement  the  smaller  arms,  and  the 


Medical  Department. 

Group  VIII:  White  established  organizations .  24,205 

Selected  to  provide  comparison  be¬ 
tween  enlisted  men  of  various  arms 
of  the  service. 

Group  X:  Special  experimental  Group .  1,047 


Randomly  selected  individuals  of 
the  white  draft  born  in  English 
speaking  countries,  who  were  given 
both  alpha  and  beta,  and,  where 
possible,  the  Stanford-Binet  ex¬ 
amination. 

These  groups  selected  as  representative  of  the  country 
at  large  were  analyzed  by  the  Hollerith  system  of  mechan¬ 
ical  sorting. 

In  this  study  we  are  concerned  with: 

Groups  I,  II  and  III  representing  the  white  draft, 

Groups  IV  and  V  representing  the  negro  draft, 

Group  VI  representing  the  white  officers,  and  Group  X, 
the  special  experimental  group. 


76 

Group 

Group 


Other 
follows : 

Group 


SECTION  II 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  MAIN  GROUPS  OF  THE 

PRINCIPAL  SAMPLE 


The  tabulations  in  Memoir  XV  showing  the  distribution 
of  scores  on  each  type  of  examination  of  the  white  draft 
(Groups  I,  II,  and  III),  the  negro  draft  (Groups  IV  and 
V),  and  the  white  officers  (Group  VI)  have  been  re-figured 
on  the  combined  scale.  The  following  tables  were  used: 

For  the  white  draft: 

Alpha:  Table  183  (p.  666)  for  men  who  took 

alpha  only . 67,254 

Beta:  Table  184  (p.  666)  for  men  who  took  beta 

only,  or  alpha  and  beta . 23,547 

Individual : 

Table  185  (p.  667)  for  men  who  took  Stanford- 
Binet  examination  only,  or  follow¬ 
ing  alpha,  following  beta,  or  follow¬ 
ing  alpha  and  beta .  1,246 

Table  186  (p.  667)  for  men  who  took  point 
scale  examination  only,  or  following 
alpha,  following  beta,  or  following 
alpha  and  beta .  689 

Table  187  (p.  668)  for  men  who  took  perform¬ 
ance  scale  examination  only,  or  fol¬ 
lowing  alpha,  following  beta,  or  fol¬ 


lowing  alpha  and  beta .  1,237 

Total  Cases .  93,973 

77 


78  AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 

For  the  negro  draft: 

Alpha:  Table  239  (p.  716)  for  men  who  took 


alpha  only .  8,429 

Beta:  Table  241  (p.  717)  for  men  who  took  beta 

only,  or  alpha  and  beta . 14,350 

Individual : 

Table  242  (p.  717)  for  men  who  took  Stanford- 
Binet  examination  only,  or  follow- 
ing  alpha,  following  beta,  or  follow¬ 
ing  alpha  and  beta .  403 


Table  229  (p.  711)  for  men  who  took  point 
scale  examination  only,  or  following 
alpha,  following  beta,  or  following 
alpha  and  beta .  390 

Table  228  (p.  710)  for  men  who  took  perform¬ 
ance  scale  examination  only,  or  fol¬ 
lowing  alpha,  following  beta,  or  fol¬ 


lowing  alpha  and  beta .  32 

Total  Cases .  23,604 

For  White  officers: 


Alpha:  Table  182  (p.  665)  for  all  officers  who 

took  examination  alpha  only.  15,544 

It  will  be  remembered  that  examination  beta  was  given 
to  all  men  who  had  been  selected  as  illiterate  or  non-Eng¬ 
lish  speaking  before  examination  alpha  was  given,  and  also 
to  those  who  took  alpha  and  failed  to  make  a  reliable  score. 
In  the  same  way  individual  examinations  were  given  to  the 
lowest  scoring  cases  in  beta.  Consequently,  in  figuring  the 
results,  if  a  man  has  taken  both  alpha  and  beta,  his  alpha 
score  is  disregarded  and  his  beta  score  taken.'  In  the  same 
way,  if  he  took  both  alpha  and  beta,  and  was  then  given  an 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


79 


individual  examination,  his  alpha  and  beta  scores  are  dis¬ 
regarded,  and  his  score  on  the  individual  examination  is 
taken  as  expressing  the  best  measure  of  his  intelligence.  In 
other  words  we  use  alpha  as  our  measure  if  alpha  only  was 
given,  beta  as  our  measure  if  beta  alone,  or  alpha  and  beta 
were  given,  and  the  individual  examination  as  our  measure 
if  it  was  given  at  all,  on  the  assumption  that  the  most  re¬ 
liable  test  of  a  man  was  the  last  one  given. 

The  distribution  of  the  scores  of  the  white  officers,  white 
draft  and  negro  draft  is  shown  in  Table  1.  The  first  three 
columns  are  read  in  this  manner:  six  officers  and  one  re¬ 
cruit  measured  between  24.0  and  24.9  on  the  combined 
scale,  one  hundred  and  six  officers  and  eighteen  recruits  be¬ 
tween  23.0  and  23.9,  etc.  The  first  three  columns  show  the 
actual  distributions,  i.  e.  six  officers  out  of  15,543,  one  re¬ 
cruit  out  of  93,955,  etc.  The  last  three  columns  show  each 
of  these  distributions  arranged  according  to  the  number  in 
each  ten  thousand  who  scored  at  each  class  interval  of  the 
combined  scale.  The  last  three  columns  read  in  this  man¬ 
ner:  four  officers  in  ten  thousand  test  between  24.0  and 
24.9  on  the  combined  scale;  sixty-eight  officers  and  two  re¬ 
cruits  in  ten  thousand  score  between  23.0  and  23.9  on  the 
combined  scale,  etc.  The  “proportion  in  each  ten  thousand” 
may  be  read  as  a  percentage  by  pointing  off  two  decimal 
places. 

Table  1  also  shows  the  average  score  of  the  white  officers, 
white  draft  and  colored  draft  on  the  combined  scale  to  be 
18.84,  13.54  and  10.41  respectively.  The  standard  devia¬ 
tion  (S.  D.)  is  also  shown.  An  average  has  little  significance 
without  reference  to  a  measure  of  variability  of  the  series 
of  measurements  on  which  it  is  based.  The  conventionally 
accepted  measure  of  variability  is  the  standard  deviation, 
which  is  derived  by  taking  the  square  root  of  the  average 
of  the  squares  of  the  individual  deviations  from  the  aver- 


Table  No.  1 

Distribution  of  the  intelligence  scores  of  the  main  groups 
of  the  principal  sample  on  the  combined  scale. 


COMBINED 

SCALE 

INTERVALS 

ACTUAL 

DISTRIBUTION 

PROPORTION  IN  EACH 

TEN  THOUSAND 

WHITE 

OFFICERS 

WHITE 

DRAFT 

NEGRO 

DRAFT 

WHITE 

OFFICERS 

WHITE 

DRAFT 

NEGRO 

DRAFT 

24 . 0-24 . 9 

6 

1 

4 

23.0-23.9 

106 

18 

68 

2 

•  •  •  • 

22.0-22.9 

612 

124 

1 

394 

13 

•  •  •  • 

21.0-21.9 

1648 

444 

7 

1060 

48 

3 

20.0-20.9 

2522 

1006 

16 

1623 

107 

7 

19.0-19.9 

2836 

1804 

35 

1824 

192 

15 

18.0-18.9 

2698 

2996 

81 

1736 

319 

34 

17.0-17.9 

2155 

4687 

172 

1387 

499 

73 

16.0-16.9 

1454 

6847 

330 

935 

729 

140 

15.0-15.9 

837 

9328 

600 

538 

993 

254 

14.0-14.9 

412 

12019 

1031 

265 

1279 

437 

13.0-13.9 

179 

14659 

1793 

115 

1560 

760 

12.0-12.9 

60 

14002 

2572 

39 

1490 

1090 

11.0-11.9 

14 

9481 

2951 

9 

1009 

1251 

10.0-10.9 

3 

6227 

3187 

2 

662 

1351 

9. 0-9. 9 

1 

4433 

3319 

1 

472 

1406 

8. 0-8. 9 

2876 

2891 

•  •  •  • 

306 

1225 

7. 0-7. 9 

1683 

2149 

179 

911 

6. 0-6. 9 

814 

1315 

87 

557 

5. 0-5. 9 

334 

684 

36 

290 

4 . 0-4 . 9 

122 

302 

13 

128 

3. 0-3. 9 

37 

112 

4 

48 

2. 0-2. 9 

11 

38 

1 

16 

1.0-1. 9 

2 

10 

.... 

.... 

4 

No.  cases . 

15543 

93955 

23596 

Average . 

18.84 

13.54 

10.41 

S.  D . 

2.10 

2.92 

2.79 

80 


1 800  -1 


H 

fa 

< 

ffa 

Q 

O 

« 

O 

fa 

l 


H 

fa 

<: 

Q 

fa 

H 


fa 

C 

H 

O 

H 


C/3 

fa 

fa 

CJ 

l-H 

fa 

fa 

o 

w 

H 

-H 

3 

£ 


43 

1 

p-fa 

43 

-H 

f-t 

fa 

fa 

co 

o 

fa 

43 

H 

-M 

«+-l 

y 

fa 

Sh 

"fa 

43 

""fa 

43 

O 

co 

be 

43 

fa 

,"fa 

43 

fa 

•  pH 

Ti 

•fa 

d 

fa 

a 

fa 

0 

43 

-M 

CO 

3 

4-4 

fa 

"fa 

43 

co 

43 

4-> 

*4 

•pH 

rfa 

fan 

43 

£ 

f-t 

•\ 

ifa 

CO 

<N 

s- 

03 

O 

43 

-M 

£ 

O 

o 

43 

a 

-m 

0 

•  r«H 

_th 

r—H 

<H-4 

£ 

43 

H 

fa 

o 

V 3 

43 

co 

43 

r— < 

Jh 

fa 

o 

4H 

o 

fa 

co 

0 

«-M 

SJ 

•i—l 

O 

Sh 

CO 

fa 

O 

rfa 

o 

43 

•  pH 

4-* 

rfa 

fa 

H 

rfa 

•  pH 

u 

43* 

fa-> 

l-H 

c n 

fa 

•  pH 

43 

G 

CO 

"fa 

• 

43 

CO 

fa 

•  pH 

43 

rfa 

rH 

fa 

s 

0 

s  C 

Crs  a 


•  n 


"3  s 

a  o 

•  rH 

>  * 
>  £ 
a)  a 

rfa  ?H 

Eh  "fa 

.  43 
aj  ?h 

a  <s 

v  <u 
bJD 

fan  H 

g 

-M 

G  a; 

•i-i  u 
S  4-> 

•  pH 

2  <u 

^  r-j 

H  EH 

a 

•S1 
O  fa 
•+->  co 

^  § 

G 

^fa  ^ 

S  g 

a  -m 
fa  ^ 

a 

■H  fa 

rfa  (U 

biO  _ 


O  h 
4j  <o 

.,  rfa 


43 


s 


3 

fa 


43 

2  ~ 
«+H 

CO 


rd 

« 

43 

H 


co 


43 
co 
43 

H 

fan 

43 

r  h 


43 


fa  - 

43  3 

fa  a 
fa  co 


the  intelligence  of  the  three  groups  are  very  marked. 


82 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


age.  The  size  of  the  standard  deviation  indicates  the  vari¬ 
ability  of  the  group.  In  this  case  the  white  officers  are  more 
homogeneous  (less  variable)  than  the  white  draft  and  the 
negro  draft  (standard  deviation  of  2.10  compared  with  2.92 
and  2.79).  Furthermore,  the  negro  draft  is  more  homogen¬ 
eous  than  the  white  draft  (2.79  compared  with  2.92). 

Figure  31  shows  graphically  the  proportions  given  in  the 
last  columns  of  Table  1.  The  horizontal  line  shows  the  com¬ 
bined  scale  intervals  and  the  vertical  lines  the  number  in 
each  ten  thousand.  These  curves  show  very  clearly  the  dis¬ 
tribution  of  intelligence  in  the  three  groups.  In  general,  the 
distributions  are  similar  in  shape,  but  they  differ  markedly 
in  their  position  on  the  scale  of  intelligence.  The  differences 
are  very  great.  Of  the  officers,  98.87%  are  above  the  average 
of  the  white  draft,  and  99.97%  are  above  the  average  of  the 
negro  draft.  Of  the  white  draft,  86.31% are  above  the  aver¬ 
age  of  the  negro  draft.  Only  13.13%  of  the  negro  draft  are 
above  the  average  of  the  white  draft.  This  method  of  figur¬ 
ing  gives  us  some  indication  of  the  differences  between  the 
groups.  If  the  distribution  of  intelligence  in  two  groups  were 
the  same,  50%  of  either  group  would  exceed  the  average 
of  the  other  group.  If  the  distributions  were  absolutely  dis¬ 
tinct,  and  there  was  no  over-lapping,  then  100%  of  one 
group  would  exceed  the  highest  man  in  the  other  group. 
This  last  case  would  only  occur  if  we  compared  very  ex¬ 
treme  groups  (such  as  officers  and  idiots),  and  the  conven¬ 
tional  method  is  that  of  expressing  the  difference  on  a  scale 
of  50%,  i.  e.  the  per  cent,  of  one  group  above  the  average 
of  the  other  group. 

The  most  reliable  method  of  determining  the  relation¬ 
ship  between  two  groups  is  that  of  comparing  the  difference 
between  the  averages  with  the  probable  error  of  the  dif¬ 
ference.  This  method  takes  account  of  the  variability  of  the 
original  measures  in  each  series,  and  also  the  reliability  of 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


83 


the  measures  as  determined  by  both  the  variability  and  the 
number  of  cases.  If  the  difference  is  —2  and  the  probable 
error  of  the  difference  is  1,  the  difference  would  be  written 
—  2  =±=1,  meaning  that  the  chances  are  even  that  it  would 
not  be  less  than  —1,  or  more  than  —3.  Differences  which 
are  not  at  least  four  times  as  great  as  the  probable  error  of 
the  difference  are  not  conventionally  accepted  as  significant. 

Applying  this  method  to  the  groups  under  consideration, 
we  find  the  following  differences : 

Between  white  officers  and  white  draft  —5.30  ±  ,0131. 
(The  difference  is  405  times  the  probable  error  of  the 
difference.) 

Between  white  officers  and  negro  draft  —8.43  ±.0167. 
(The  difference  is  505  times  the  probable  error  of  the 
difference.) 

Between  white  draft  and  negro  draft  —3. 13 ±.0138. 
(The  difference  is  227  times  the  probable  error  of  the 
difference.) 


SECTION  III 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  WHITE  DRAFT  INTO 
FOREIGN  AND  NATIVE  BORN 

The  next  problem  is  that  of  breaking  up  the  white  draft 
into  its  constituent  elements  as  far  as  possible.  In  Chapter 
6,  Part  3  of  Memoir  XV  we  find  tables  showing  the  dis¬ 
tribution  of  the  scores  of  12,492  recruits  who  reported  that 
they  were  born  in  foreign  countries.  The  tables  in  Memoir 
XV  give  the  scores  of  all  but  800  who  reported  foreign 
birth.  As  all  of  the  12,492  reported  cases  were  in  Groups 
I,  II  and  III,  they  may  be  deducted  from  those  groups, 
leaving  a  remainder  composed  of  (1)  native  born,  and  (2) 
foreign  born  who  failed  to  report  on  their  psychological  ex¬ 
amination  blanks  the  fact  that  they  were  born  in  some 
country  other  than  the  LTnited  States.  How  large  this  latter 
group  is  we  have  no  way  of  estimating.  In  the  following 
tabulations  the  term  “native  born”  is  defined  as  all  who 
stated  that  they  were  born  in  the  United  States,  plus  all 
who  failed  to  record  the  country  of  their  birth. 

The  original  data  giving  the  score  distributions  of  the 
12,492  foreign  born  were  obtained  from  the  following  tables : 


Alpha:  Table  207  (p.  693)  for  men  who  took 

alpha  only .  4,191 

Beta:  Table  208  (p.  694)  for  men  who  took  beta 

only,  or  alpha  and  beta .  7,264 

Individual : 

Table  209  (p.  694)  for  men  who  took  Stanford- 
Binet  examination  only,  or  follow¬ 
ing  alpha,  or  following  beta,  or  fol¬ 
lowing  alpha  and  beta .  207 


84 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE  85 

Table  210  (p.  596)  for  men  who  took  perform¬ 
ance  scale  examination  only,  or  fol¬ 
lowing  alpha,  following  beta,  or  fol¬ 
lowing  alpha  and  beta .  830 


Total  foreign  born  white  draft . 12,492 


The  actual  distributions  of  the  scores  of  the  native  born 
and  foreign  born  are  shown  in  the  first  two  columns  of 
Table  2,  while  the  last  two  columns  in  this  table  give  the 
proportion  in  ten  thousand  scoring  at  each  class  interval. 
These  distributions  are  also  shown  graphically  in  Figure  32. 
Here  again  it  is  apparent  that  we  have  two  groups  that  are 
markedly  different.  Of  the  native  born  74.8%  exceed  the 
average  of  the  foreign  born.  The  difference  between  the 
native  born  and  the  foreign  born  is  — 1.72  =±=  .0186,  a  differ¬ 
ence  that  is  92J/2  times  the  probable  error  of  the  difference. 

Comparing  the  native  born  white  draft  with  the  negro 
draft  showm  in  the  preceding  section,  we  find  that  88.76% 
of  the  native  born  white  draft  exceed  the  average  of  the 
negro  draft.  The  difference  between  these  two  groups  is 
“3. 36  =±=.014,  a  difference  that  is  240  times  the  probable 
error  of  the  difference. 

Comparing  the  foreign  born  with  the  negro  draft,  we  find 
that  70.44%  of  the  foreign  born  exceed  the  average  of  the 
negro  draft.  The  difference  between  these  two  groups  is 
—  1.64  =±=.0212,  a  difference  that  is  77  times  the  probable 
error  of  the  difference. 


Table  No.  2 

Analysis  of  the  white  draft  into  foreign  born  and  native 
born  groups.  Distribution  of  each  group  on  the  combined 
scale. 


ACTUAL  DISTRIBUTION 

PROPORTION  IN  EACH 

TEN  THOUSAND 

COMBINED 

SCALE 

INTERVALS 

NATIVE 

FOREIGN 

NATIVE 

FOREIGN 

BORN 

BORN 

BORN 

BORN 

WHITE 

WHITE 

WHITE 

WHITE 

DRAFT 

DRAFT 

DRAFT 

DRAFT 

24.0-24.9 

1 

23.0-23.9 

18 

1 

2 

1 

22.0-22.9 

120 

4 

15 

3 

21.0-21.9 

428 

16 

52 

13 

20.0-20.9 

971 

35 

119 

21 

19.0-19.9 

1733 

71 

213 

57 

18.0-18.9 

2850 

147 

349 

117 

17.0-17.9 

4403 

284 

540 

227 

16.0-16.9 

6345 

502 

779 

402 

15.0-15.9 

8537 

791 

1048 

633 

14.0-14.9 

10870 

1148 

1334 

919 

13.0-13.9 

13066 

1593 

1604 

1275 

12.0-12.9 

12220 

1782 

1500 

1426 

11.0-11.9 

7885 

1596 

968 

1277 

10.0-10.9 

4801 

1425 

589 

1141 

90-9.9 

3178 

1254 

390 

1004 

8. 0-8. 9 

1985 

892 

244 

714 

7.0-7. 9 

1153 

530 

142 

424 

6. 0-6. 9 

556 

259 

68 

207 

5. 0-5. 9 

228 

106 

28 

94 

4 . 0-4 . 9 

83 

39 

12 

31 

3. 0-3. 9 

25 

12 

3 

10 

2. 0-2. 9 

7 

4 

1 

3 

1.0-1. 9 

2 

1 

1 

No.  of  cases.  .  . . 

81465 

12492 

Average . 

13.77 

12.05 

S.  D.  “ . 

2.86 

2.88 

86 


»-oooa 


H 

<1 

Ph 

Q 

W 

H 

►— I 

£ 

o 

£ 

o 

HH 

W 

P3 

O 

rM 


t 


H 

& 

t 

a 

H 


O 

« 

w 

> 

H-t 

H 


< 


J25 


I 

I 

I 

I 

I 


jj  i  o 

H-l  O  H 
03  Sh  '  [  'i 

5-1  P_, 

^  -  a 

<d  3  ? 

•H  «J«S 

O 

^  “  G 
G  3  ej 

rH  £  Sh 

a  o  ^ 
^  .2  « 
C  Sh  Sh 

fcco  cd 

*  *“H  r  | 

<d  <n 

Sh  <D  9 


o 

V-H 

<D 


T3 

G 

c3 


Sh 

O 

0) 


03 

G 

a; 


G 

o 


*3  5 

<u  s 

u  G 

o  IS 
o  ’■a 
cb  G 


a;  c 

Sh  *i-i 

68  g 

c n  a? 


a; 

> 

Sh 

G 

a 

o 

£ 

■*-> 

<v 

CB 

<U 


> 

'Sc 


=4H 

«3 

5h 

r3 

<D 


Eh  £ 

•  1— 1 

O*  oj 
<D  "o 

3  ** 

03  <D 


"s  3 

e  s 

£  w 


«+H 

o 

CB 

G 


feij 


£ 

<d 


CB 
CD 

Sh 

O 
a  5-1 

CB  <D 


> 

<D 

P— H 

-M 

g 

o 

Gj 

G 

cj 

C B 


O 

0 

G3 

G 

03 

— 

h-j 


VH 

O 

£ 

0) 

G 

O 

c 

CO 

a 

»*~H 

4J 

r- ' 

PH 

CD 

-M 

O 

•pH 

S3 

pH 

Sh 

G 

4-' 

a 

D 

3 

CB 

-M 

G 

p-G 

rC 

£3 

(D 

> 

*C 

D 

0 

•  pH 

-M 

r* 

pH 

c3 

fee 

CO 

D 

•  pH 

BO 

t— ( 

3 

rn 

rH 

G 

CB 

H 

PH 

<N 

pH 

O 

<D 

•  pH 

CO 

G 

4-> 

Vi 

CO 

Oj 

V 

D 

-t-J 

.O 

-w 

Vi 

c 

c 

po 

pH 

O 

V 

•  CH 

O 

0 

P-H 

0 

P-H 

<D 
CB 
(D 
Sh 
£h 

<D 

5h 

Ph 
33 
O 
Sh 

fee 

.3  03 

5h  5h 

•  pH 

>  C 
!>  (D 

-M 

<D 


fee 

G 


£3 

<D 

r* 

03 


Table  1,  and  shown  in  Figure  31)  into  its  two  components — the  native  born  and 
foreign  born.  The  curves  show  clearly  that  the  foreign  born  are  intellectually  in¬ 
ferior  to  the  native  born.  The  foreign  born  group  as  a  whole  is,  however,  superior  to 
the  negro  group. 


SECTION  IV 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  FOREIGN  BORN  WHITE 
DRAFT  INTO  YEARS  OF  RESIDENCE 

GROUPS 

The  next  problem  is  that  of  breaking  up  the  foreign  born 
white  draft  into  its  sub-groups,  in  order  to  discover  the  rea¬ 
son  for  the  discrepancy  between  the  main  group  of  foreign 
born  and  the  native  born  white  draft.  In  Chapter  7,  Part  3 
of  Memoir  XV  we  find  tables  showing  the  scores  of  11,295 
foreign  born  (included  in  Groups  I,  II  and  III  of  the  prin¬ 
cipal  sample)  classified  according  to  the  number  of  years  of 
residence.  The  scores  are  tabulated  for  the  following  groups: 

1st :  a  six  year  period . 0  to  5  years  of  residence 

2nd:  a  five  year  period.  ...  6  to  10  years  of  residence 
3rd:  a  five  year  period ....  11  to  15  years  of  residence 
4th:  a  five  year  period ....  16  to  20  years  of  residence 
5th:  a  ten  year  period.  .  .  .Over  20  years  of  residence 

As  the  age  limit  of  the  draft  was  31,  the  last  group  would 
include  cases  who  have  been  in  the  United  States  since 
childhood.  It  is  probable  that  all  of  the  11,295  cases  are  in¬ 
cluded  in  the  12,492  cases  shown  in  the  preceding  section. 
The  discrepancy  in  numbers  between  the  two  groups  is 
probably  due  to  the  fact  that  some  foreign  born  reported 
the  country  of  their  birth,  but  failed  to  report  the  number 
of  years  they  had  been  residents  of  the  United  States. 

The  scores  reported  in  Chapter  7  have  been  re-figured  on 
the  combined  scale.  The  following  tables  were  used  for  the 
original  data : 


88 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE  89 

Alpha  :Table  219  (p.  701)  for  men  who  took  alpha 

only .  3,619 

Beta:  Table  220  (p.  702)  for  men  who  took  beta 

only,  or  alpha  and  beta .  7,264 

Individual : 


Table  221  (p.  702)  for  men  who  took  performance 
scale  examination  only,  or  following 
alpha,  following  beta,  or  following  alpha 


and  beta .  802 

Table  222  (p.  703)  for  men  who  took  Stanford- 
Binet  examination  only,  or  following 
alpha,  or  following  beta,  or  following 
alpha  and  beta .  207 


Total  cases  in  all  residence  groups . 11,295 


The  distributions  of  the  scores  of  the  five  years  of  resi¬ 
dence  groups  on  the  combined  scale  are  shown  in  Table  3. 
This  table  shows  a  very  remarkable  fact,  viz.,  a  steady 
increase;  in  the  average  scores  with  increasing  years  of 
residence, The  averages  being : 

0  TO  5  YUS.  6  TO  10  YRS.  11  TO  15  YRS.  16  TO  20  YES.  OVER  20  YRS. 

11.41  (2.85)  11.74  (2.80)  12.47  (2.77)  13.55  (2.60)  13.82  (2.71) 

From  0  to  20  years  of  residence,  the  average  rises  steadily 
and  the  variability  becomes  less  and  less. 

Table  4  gives  the  difference  between  each  group  and 
every  other  group,  together  with  the  probable  error  of  the 
difference,  and  the  ratio  of  the  difference  to  the  probable 
error  of  the  difference.  All  of  the  differences  shown  in  Table 
4  are  significant  except  the  difference  between  groups  “16 
to  20  yrs.”  and  “over  20  yrs.,”  this  difference  (0.27)  being 
only  three  times  the  probable  error  of  the  difference 
(±0.0915). 


Table  No.  3 

Analysis  of  the  foreign  born  white  draft  by  years  of  resi¬ 
dence  in  the  United  States.  Distribution  of  each  resi¬ 
dence  group  on  the  combined  scale. 


COMBINED 

SCALE 

INTERVALS 

YEARS 

OF  RESIDENCE 

0  to  5 

YEARS 

6  TO  10 

YEARS 

11  TO  15 

YEARS 

16  to  20 

YEARS 

OVER  20 
YEARS 

24.0-24.9 

0.1 

23.0-23.9 

•  •  •  • 

0.1 

0.5 

.... 

•  •  •  • 

22.0-22.9 

0.6 

0.6 

0.8 

0.5 

0.5 

21.0-21.9 

2.6 

2.9 

2.6 

1.6 

3.6 

20.0-20.9 

5.8 

8.2 

6.3 

3.6 

7.5 

19.0-19.9 

14.4 

18.6 

13.1 

8.3 

12.1 

18.0-18.9 

27.6 

37.6 

27.9 

18.0 

24.7 

17.0-17.9 

55.5 

72.0 

50.6 

36.7 

41.1 

16.0-16.9 

104.5 

141.8 

83.1 

61.2 

66.2 

15.0-15.9 

172.4 

240.7 

131.3 

87.3 

86.1 

14.0-14.9 

261.2 

355.2 

198.7 

106.1 

106.3 

13.0-13.9 

374.4 

506.2 

282.0 

128.6 

128.6 

12.0-12.9 

444.8 

597.0 

309.1 

124.5 

113.7 

11.0-11.9 

457.5 

572.1 

245.6 

82.6 

69.0 

10.0-10.9 

471.0 

533.0 

189.8 

47.4 

42.9 

9. 0-9. 9 

453.3 

479.2 

152.3 

29.5 

29.5 

8. 0-8. 9 

342.6 

347.2 

102.1 

18.1 

18.2 

7. 0-7. 9 

212.9 

209.6 

58.5 

9.9 

9.2 

6. 0-6. 9 

106.8 

102.4 

27.0 

4.5 

3.4 

5. 0-5. 9 

44.7 

41.7 

10.5 

1.7 

1.0 

4. 0-4. 9 

16.5 

14.9 

3.6 

0.6 

0.3 

3. 0-3. 9 

5.0 

4.4 

1.1 

0.2 

0.1 

2. 0-2. 9 

1.5 

1.3 

0.3 

0.1 

•  .  •  • 

1.0-1. 9 

0.4 

0.3 

0.1 

.... 

•  •  •  • 

No.  of  cases . 

3576 

4287 

1897 

771 

764 

Average . 

11.41 

11.74 

12.47 

13.55 

13.82 

S.  D . 

2.85 

2.80 

2.77 

2.60 

2.71 

90 


Table  No.  4 

Comparison  of  the  average  scores  on  the  combined  scale 
of  the  five  years  of  residence  groups  of  the  foreign  born 
white  draft. 


YEARS  OF  RESIDENCE 

GROUPS 

0  TO  5  YRS. 
AVE. 11 .41 
3576  cases 

6  TO  10  YRS. 
AVE.  11.74 
4287  cases 

11  TO  15  YRS. 
ave. 12.47 
1897  cases 

16  TO  20  YRS. 
ave. 13.55 

771  CASES 

6  to  10  yrs. 
Ave.  11.74 
4287  cases 

(Diff. 
(P.  E.  Diff. 
(Ratio 

+0.33 

±0.0431 

7.7 

11  to  15  yrs. 
Ave.  12.47 
1897  cases 

(Diff. 
(P.  E.  Diff. 

(Ratio 

+  1.06 
±0 . 0536 
19.8 

+0.73 

±0.0517 

14.1 

16  to  20  yrs. 
Ave.  13.55 

771  cases 

(Diff. 
(P.  E.  Diff. 
(Ratio 

+2.14 

±0.0709 

30.2 

+1.81 

±0.0695 

26.0 

+1.08 

±0.0764 

14.1 

Over  20  vrs. 
Ave.  13.82 

764  cases 

(Diff. 
(P.  E.  Diff. 
(Ratio 

+2.41 

±0.0735 

32.8 

+2.08 

±0.0721 

28.8 

+1.35 

±0.0788 

17.1 

+0.27 

±0.0915 

3.0 

91 


Table  No.  5 


Comparison  of  the  average  scores  on  the  combined  scale 
of  the  native  born  white  draft  with  the  five  years  of  resi¬ 
dence  groups  of  the  foreign  born  white  draft. 

NATIVE  BORN  WHITE  DRAFT,  81465 


TEARS  OF  RESIDENCE 

GROUPS 

CASES,  AVE.  13.77 

RATIO  OF 

PROBABLE  DIFFERENCE 

ERROR  OF  TO  PROBABLE 

DIFFERENCE 

THE  DIF-  ERROR  OF 

FERENCE  THE  DIF¬ 

FERENCE 

0  to  5  yrs. 

Ave.  11.41 

3576  cases 

-2.36  ±0.0104  226.9 

6  to  10  yrs. 

Ave.  11.74 

4287  cases 

-2.03  ±0.0296  68.6 

11  to  15  yrs. 

Ave.  12.47 

1897  cases 

-1.30  ±0.0434  30.0 

16  to  20  yrs. 

Ave.  13.55 

771  cases 

-0.22  ±0.0636  3.5 

Over  20  yrs. 

Ave.  13.82 

764  cases 

+  0.05  ±0.0664  0.75 

92 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


93 


Table  5  shows  the  relationship  of  the  five  years  of  resi¬ 
dence  groups  to  the  native  born  white  draft.  With  increase 
in  the  time  of  residence,  the  differences  between  the  native 
born  and  the  foreign  born  become  increasingly  less  signifi¬ 
cant.  The  difference  between  the  native  born  and  the  “16 
to  20  yrs.”  group  of  foreign  born  is  slight  (0.22)  and  is  less 
than  four  times  the  probable  error  of  the  difference 
(±0.0636).  The  foreign  born  group  in  this  country  over  20 
years  have  an  average  score  identical  with  the  average 
score  of  the  native  born,  the  actual  difference  (0.05)  being 
smaller  than  the  probable  error  of  the  difference  ( ±  0.0664) . 

Figure  33  shows  graphically  the  relationships  between 
the  averages  of  the  years  of  residence  groups  and  the  native 
draft.  In  this  graph,  the  horizontal  line  represents  in¬ 
creasing  length  of  residence  and  the  vertical  line  repre¬ 
sents  increase  in  the  average  score  on  the  combined  scale. 

This  very  remarkable  fact  of  increase  in  the  intelligence 
score  with  years  of  residence  was  commented  on  by  the 
army  authors  in  Memoir  XV  as  follows : 

“It  is  not  possible  to  state  whether  the  difference  is 
caused  by  the  better  adaptation  of  the  more  thoroughly 
Americanized  group  to  the  situation  of  the  examination  or 
whether  some  other  factor  is  operative.  It  might  be,  for  in¬ 
stance,  that  the  more  intelligent  immigrants  succeed  and 
therefore  remain  in  this  country,  but  this  suggestion  is 
weakened  by  the  fact  that  so  many  successful  immigrants 
do  return  to  Europe.  At  best  we  can  but  leave  for  future 
decision  the  question  as  to  whether  the  differences  repre¬ 
sent  a  real  difference  of  intelligence  or  an  artifact  of  the 
method  of  examination.”  (p.  704.) 

If  our  results  reflect  another  factor  independent  of  in¬ 
telligence,  which  might  be  designated  “the  better  adapta¬ 
tion  of  the  more  thoroughly  Americanized  group  to  the 
situation  of  the  examination,”  we  have  no  means  of  con- 


0  TO  5  6  TO  10  11  TO  15  16  TO  20  OVER  20 


YEARS  RESIDENCE  IN  UNITED  STATES 


94 


Figure  33.  Apparently  increasing  average  intelligence  with  in¬ 
creasing  years  of  residence.  The  horizontal  scale  reads  from 
left  to  right  according  to  increasing  length  of  residence.  The 
vertical  scale  represents  score  on  the  combined  scale.  For 
purposes  of  comparison,  the  position  of  the  native  born  white 
draft  on  the  combined  scale  is  shown  by  a  continuous  line.  The 
group  of  immigrants  who  have  been  in  this  country  from  16  to 
20  years  have  an  average  intelligence  almost  as  high  as  that  of 
the  native  born,  while  immigrants  in  this  country  over  20  years 
test  the  same  as  native  born. 


95 


96 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


trolling  this  factor.  Ultimately,  the  validity  of  our  conclu¬ 
sions  from  this  study  rests  on  the  validity  of  alpha,  beta, 
and  the  individual  examinations.  It  is  sometimes  stated 
that  the  examining  methods  stressed  too  much  the  hurry- 
up  attitude  frequently  called  typically  American.  The  ad¬ 
justment  to  test  conditions  is  a  part  of  the  intelligence  test. 
We  have,  of  course,  no  other  measure  of  adjustment  aside 
from  the  total  score  on  the  examinations  given.  If  the  tests 
used  included  some  mysterious  type  of  situation  that  was 
“typically  American,”  we  are  indeed  fortunate,  for  this  is 
America,  and  the  purpose  of  our  inquiry  is  that  of  obtain¬ 
ing  a  measure  of  the  character  of  our  immigration.  Inability 
to  respond  to  a  “typically  American”  situation  is  obviously 
an  undesirable  trait. 

For  our  purposes  then  we  will  accept  the  definition  of  in¬ 
telligence  given  on  page  573  of  Memoir  XV,  viz.,  “by  ‘in¬ 
telligence’  we  mean  the  ability  that  manifests  itself  quanti¬ 
tatively  in  a  set  of  consistent  scores  in  all  of  the  types  of 
examination  [upon  which  our  data  are  based.”  We  are 
forced  to  include  the  “adjustment  to  test  conditions”  in 
our  definition  of  intelligence.  And  we  hope,  probably  in  the 
teeth  of  the  facts,  that  the  adjustment  to  test  conditions 
involved  a  situation  that  was  “typically  American.” 

The  hypothesis  that  the  more  intelligent  immigrants  re¬ 
main  in  this  country  while  the  more  stupid  ones  go  home, 
which  was  offered  by  the  army  authors  to  account  for  the 
increase  of  intelligence  scores  with  increasing  years  of  resi¬ 
dence,  can  not  be  checked  from  the  data  available  in  this 
study,  and  the  emigration  statistics  give  us  little  help. 
Table  6  shows  the  ratio  between  emigrant  aliens  and  im¬ 
migrant  aliens  from  each  country  from  1908  to  1917.  No 
figures  for  emigrant  aliens  are  available  prior  to  1908. 

Table  6  shows  that  since  1908  a  very  considerable  num¬ 
ber  (approximately  one  third)  of  immigrants  have  event- 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


97 


ually  returned  to  their  native  countries.  If  the  selection  factor 
mentioned  were  operating,  and  in  the  long  run  the  depart¬ 
ing  group  contained  more  persons  of  lower  intellectual  capac¬ 
ity  than  the  remaining  group,  an  intelligence  measurement 
would  show  an  increase  in  the  direction  shown  in  Table  3, 
but  the  departing  third  would  have  to  be  very  heavily 
weighted  with  low  grade  individuals  to  make  any  consider¬ 
able  difference  in  the  distribution  of  the  remaining  two 
thirds. 

Under  the  conditions  of  this  study  then,  the  hypothesis 
that  the  more  intelligent  immigrants  succeed  and  therefore 
remain  in  this  country  must  remain  in  the  realm  of  specu¬ 
lation,  as  it  can  not  be  demonstrated  as  a  fact.  For  our 
purposes  the  converse  hypothesis,  that  the  successful  im¬ 
migrants  save  their  earnings  and  return  to  Europe  to  live 
in  comfort  for  the  rest  of  their  lives,  is  equally  cogent. 
Either  hypothesis  is  a  legitimate  speculation.  We  must 
agree  with  the  army  authors  that  the  first  hypothesis  is 
weakened  by  the  fact  that  so  many  successful  immigrants 
do  return  to  Europe.  The  first  hypothesis  is  also  weakened 
bv  the  fact  that  if  the  more  inferior  individuals  left,  the 
distribution  of  the  intelligence  of  the  departing  third  would 
have  to  be  very  markedly  skewed  at  the  lower  end  of  the 
scale.  The  distribution  curve  of  the  departing  third  would 
be  skewed  to  such  an  extent  that  only  10%  or  15%  of  this 
group  would  exceed  the  median  of  the  remaining  two 
thirds.  We  must  conclude  that  the  selection  factor  mention¬ 
ed  might  produce  a  slight  change  in  the  direction  noted,  but 
that  it  is  highly  improbable  that  any  such  factor  could  pro¬ 
duce  a  change  in  the  amount  observed. 

The  important  problem  which  we  are  facing  is  that  of 
interpreting  the  fact  of  increase  of  intelligence  test  scores 
with  increasing  years  of  residence.  Does  our  curve  in  Fig¬ 
ure  33  represent  the  growth  of  intelligence  with  increasing 


Table  No.  6 


Per  cent,  that  emigration  was  of  immigration  for  fifteen 
countries  since  1908.  The  figures  were  obtained  by  di¬ 
viding  the  number  of  emigrant  aliens  departed  by  the 
number  of  immigrant  aliens  admitted.  The  result  is  the 
ratio  of  emigration  to  immigration.  The  ratio  100  would 
mean  that  the  number  of  alien  immigrants  admitted 
equalled  the  number  of  alien  emigrants  departed. 


AUSTRIA 

BELGIUM 

CANADA 

DENMARK 

ENGLAND 

GERMANY 

GREECE 

1908 . 

78.2 

20.5 

6.8 

13.9 

10.6 

21.0 

28.5 

1909 . 

29.1 

11.7 

58.6 

10.5 

9.4 

19.2 

40.0 

1910 . 

18.3 

12.1 

60.4 

22.5 

9.7 

19.9 

31.4 

1911 . 

54.2 

17.8 

86.9 

6.2 

10.3 

18.8 

35.7 

1912 . 

49.5 

26.5 

60.0 

10.7 

16.6 

20.8 

54.4 

5  Yr.  Period .... 

42.8 

17.5 

57.9 

12.8 

11.3 

19.9 

37.2 

1913 . 

23.0 

10.8 

63.6 

9.4 

13.7 

13.8 

134.0 

1914 . 

27.0 

19.9 

37.0 

10.0 

20.2 

14.4 

31.0 

1915 . 

74.7 

13.9 

28.3 

12.4 

35.8 

18.2 

77.8 

1916 . 

16.1 

2.4 

15.5 

15.4 

39.8 

15.3 

17.8 

1917 . 

18.9 

3.8 

18.1 

17.8 

33.5 

16.9 

8.5 

5  Y'r.  Period .... 

26.7 

13.7 

30.4 

12.0 

23.6 

14.6 

47.7 

10  Yr.  Period 
1908-1917 . 

36.8 

15.9 

40.3 

12.5 

15.7 

18.0 

42.8 

98 


HOLLAND 

IRELAND 

ITALY 

NORWAY 

RUSSIA 

SCOTLAND 

SWEDEN 

TURKEY 

TOTAL  ALL 

COUNTRIES 

5.6 

6.6 

129.9 

18.3 

24.1 

11.1 

20.1 

15.4 

50.5 

6.6 

5.5 

45.4 

9.8 

16.4 

6.0 

8.0 

17.6 

30.1 

6.1 

5.9 

24.3 

5.9 

9.3 

5 . 5 

4.2 

9.2 

19.4 

5.5 

6.8 

39.8 

10.0 

17.0 

8.1 

7.8 

22.5 

33.6 

8.5 

11.9 

68.9 

26.6 

21.3 

15.1 

19.6 

23.5 

39.8 

6.4 

7.3 

55.8 

12.6 

17.4 

8.9 

10.5 

17.2 

33.8 

8.7 

10.4 

33.2 

19.9 

9.3 

17.2 

11.5 

15.4 

25.7 

10.9 

14.7 

29.7 

33.6 

18.5 

23.1 

15.1 

12.2 

24 . 9 

19.5 

15.6 

194.5 

15.2 

69.9 

39.5 

14.5 

12.7 

62.2 

12.1 

15.1 

215.6 

26.2 

66.8 

50.1 

22 . 6 

1.2 

43 . 4 

10.1 

19.1 

36.3 

35.1 

46.7 

36.5 

15.2 

4.6 

22.4 

11.5 

13.7 

53.2 

25.1 

17.5 

25.0 

14.7 

13.3 

30.3 

8.4 

9.6 

54.6 

16.9 

17.4 

13.7 

12.1 

15.7 

32.4 

9<J 


100 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


length  of  residence,  does  it  represent  an  error  in  the  method 
of  measuring  intelligence,  or,  looked  at  from  another  angle, 
does  it  show  the  gradually  decreasing  intelligence  of  the 
more  recent  immigrants  examined  in  the  army? 

The  hypothesis  of  growth  of  intelligence  with  increasing 
length  of  residence  may  be  identified  with  the  hypothesis 
of  an  error  in  the  method  of  measuring  intelligence,  for  we 
must  assume  that  we  are  measuring  native  or  inborn  intel¬ 
ligence ,  and  any  increase  in  our  test  score  due  to  any  other 
factor  may  be  regarded  as  an  error.  It  is  therefore  necessary 
to  examine  two  hypotheses, viz. ,  (1)  a  defect  in  the  measur¬ 
ing  scale,  and  (2)  a  change  in  the  character  of  the  immi¬ 
grants  examined,  in  order  to  decide  which  is  correct,  or,  in 
case  both  factors  are  operative,  to  estimate  quantitatively 
the  magnitude  of  one  of  the  factors,  so  that  allowance  may 
be  made  for  that  factor  and  the  weight  of  the  other  factor 
thus  determined. 

The  most  probable  source  of  error  in  our  measure  of  in¬ 
telligence  is  that  arising  from  the  different  types  of  exam¬ 
ination.  Examination  alpha  involves  the  use  of  English, 
and  the  ability  to  use  English  is  a  function  of  intelligence 
and  education  in  its  broadest  sense.  Examination  beta  in¬ 
volves  no  English,  and  the  tests  can  not  be  considered  as 
educational  measures  in  any  sense.  The  individual  exami¬ 
nations  were  adapted  to  the  linguistic  ability  of  the  person 
examined.  We  would  therefore  expect  to  find  an  error  in 
two  places  only,  first,  in  the  selection  of  men  for  alpha  and 
beta,  and  second  in  the  relationship  between  alpha  and  beta 
as  expressed  on  the  combined  scale. 

If  all  members  of  our  five  years  of  residence  groups  had 
been  given  alpha,  beta  and  individual  examinations  in 
equal  proportions,  then  all  would  have  been  treated  alike, 
and  the  relationship  shown  would  stand  without  any  pos¬ 
sibility  of  error.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  The  actual  per- 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


101 


centage  of  men  in  each  residence  group  taking  each  type  of 
examination  was  as  follows: 


LENGTH  OF  RESIDENCE 

ALPHA 

BETA 

STANFORD- 

BINET 

PERFORMANCE 

SCALE 

0  to  5  years  .... 

19% 

68% 

2% 

11% 

6  to  10  years .  .  .  . 

26% 

65% 

2% 

7% 

11  to  15  years .... 

« / 

11% 

54% 

1% 

1% 

16  to  20  years .... 

66% 

32% 

1% 

1% 

Over  20  vears . 

i 

73% 

26% 

Wo 

Wo 

Recognizing  a  variation  in  the  type  of  examination  given, 
our  problem  becomes  that  of  determining  whether  or  not 
any  injustice  has  been  done  by  converting  results  from 
these  different  types  of  examination  into  the  combined 
scale.  If  the  language  and  educational  factors  account  for 
the  rise  in  the  average  score  on  the  combined  scale  with  in¬ 
creasing  years  of  residence,  then  we  should  expect  that  the 
contribution  made  to  the  combined  scale  score  through  ex¬ 
amination  beta  would  remain  constant,  and  the  contribution 
from  examination  alpha  would  increase  very  rapidly.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  the  rise  is  independent  of  the  language 
and  educational  factor  and  due  to  the  greater  native  intel¬ 
ligence  of  the  older  groups,  we  should  expect  the  contribu¬ 
tion  from  both  types  of  examination  to  remain  the  same. 
In  other  words,  if  the  combined  scale  is  accurate,  the  dis¬ 
parity  between  proportions  taking  different  types  of  ex¬ 
aminations  would  make  no  difference  in  the  final  results. 
At  the  same  time  we  would  not  expect  to  find  the  average 
scores  on  the  combined  scale  made  by  way  of  alpha  and 
beta  to  be  the  same,  for  beta  was  given  not  only  to  those 
who  were  illiterate,  but  also  to  the  dull  and  stupid  who 
failed  to  make  a  good  score  on  alpha. 

Computing,  then,  the  average  score  on  the  combined  scale 
made  by  way  of  examination  alpha,  beta,  and  the  Stanford- 
Binet  (which  includes  the  results  from  the  performance 


102 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


scale)  by  each  of  the  five  years  of  residence  groups,  we  find 
the  following: 


YEARS  OF 
RESIDENCE 
GROUPS 

0  to  5  years.  . . 
6  to  1 0  years . . 
11  to  15  years. . 
16  to  20  years. . 
Over  20  years.  . 


SCORES  DERIVED 
FROM  ALPHA 


13.46  (S.D.  2.47) 
13.57  (S.D.  2.45) 
13.91  (S.D.  2.25) 
14.31  (S.D.  2.19) 
14.56  (S.D.  2.32) 


SCORES  DERIVED 
FROM  BETA 


11.11  (S.D.  2.73) 
11.29  (S.D.  2.65) 
11.62  (S.D.  2.50) 
12.22  (S.D.  2.68) 
11.93  (S.D.  2.70) 


SCORES  DERIVED 
FROM  THE 
STANFORD-BINET 

9.99  (S.D.  2.21) 
9.86  (S.D.  2.22) 
10.19  (S.D.  2.09) 


There  is  a  steady  progress  in  the  scores  in  examination 
alpha  from  “0  to  5  yrs.”  up  to  “over  20  yrs.,”  the  total 
gain  being  1.12  points  on  the  combined  scale.  There  is  an 
equal  amount  of  progress  in  the  scores  from  examination 
beta,  a  gain  of  1.11  points  on  the  combined  scale  being  made 
in  a  shorter  period  of  time,  i.  e.  from  “0  to  5  yrs.”  to  “16 
to  20  yrs.”  If  the  increase  in  the  average  score  on  the  com¬ 
bined  scale  from  11.41  to  13.82  were  due  to  the  language 
and  educational  factor,  then  the  gain  should  come  from 
alpha  and  not  from  beta,  for  alpha  involves  language  and 
(indirectly)  education,  and  beta  does  not.  We  actually  find 
that  the  gain  from  each  type  of  examination  is  about  the 
same.  This  indicates,  then,  that  the  five  years  of  residence 
groups  are  groups  with  real  differences  in  native  intellig¬ 
ence,  and  not  groups  laboring  under  more  or  less  of  a  lin¬ 
guistic  and  educational  handicap. 

There  remains  but  one  hypothesis  that  might  establish 
the  fact  that  the  increase  in  the  score  on  the  combined  scale 
with  increasing  length  of  residence  was  due  to  an  error  in 
the  measuring  scale,  and  that  is  the  hypothesis  that  the 
combined  scale  was  constructed  in  such  a  fashion  that  it 
penalized  individuals  born  in  non-English  speaking  coun¬ 
tries.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  combined  scale  was 
constructed  from  Group  X,  a  special  experimental  group 
to  which  were  given  all  three  types  of  examination.  Group 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


103 


X  was  composed  of  1047  individuals  all  of  whom  were  born 
in  English  speaking  countries. 

Fortunately  we  are  able  to  test  the  reliability  of  the 
combined  scale  under  the  most  severe  conditions.  On  page 
654  of  Memoir  XV,  Table  166  shows  the  scores  on  both 
alpha  and  beta  of  all  individuals  in  Groups  I,  II  and  III 
of  the  principal  sample  who  had  been  given  both  alpha  and 
beta.  This  group  includes  4893  cases.  It  is  obvious  that  we 
may  figure  these  4893  cases  as  either  alpha  cases  or  beta 
cases  and  convert  them  into  the  combined  scale  either  by 
Table  159  (the  alpha  conversion  table)  or  Table  162  (the 
beta  conversion  table).  This  the  army  writers  have  done, 
and  the  results  are  given  in  Table  167  on  page  655. 

It  is  found  that  when  we  treat  the  4893  cases  as  alpha 
cases  the  average  score  on  the  combined  scale  is  10.775 
(S.D.  1.64).  When  we  treat  the  same4893  cases  asbeta  cases, 
the  average  score  on  the  combined  scale  is  12.158  (S.  D. 
2.63).  The  actual  difference  between  the  two  averages  is 
1.383  (=^ 0.0298).  In  commenting  on  this  result,  the  army 
writers  state: 

“At  first  glance  these  results  seem  rather  startling,  for 
one  might  suppose  that  going  from  alpha  (for  a  given  num¬ 
ber  of  cases)  to  the  combined  scale  ought  to  yield  the  same 
results  as  going  from  beta  to  combined  scale.  The  facts  are 
quite  the  contrary.  However,  this  difference  in  no  wise  dis¬ 
credits  the  method.  It  must  be  remembered  that  in  a  group 
of  this  sort  there  is  a  large  percentage  of  illiterates;  thus 
the  group  no  doubt  includes  a  considerable  proportion  of 
the  cases  who  made  unsatisfactory  scores  in  alpha  and 
were  recalled  to  beta  not  because  of  stupidity  but  because 
of  language  difficulty.  When  they  reached  beta,  they  were 
able  to  make  scores  more  consistent  with  their  ability.  It 
is  precisely  this  element  of  the  group  that  causes  the  dif¬ 
ference  in  the  two  means  on  the  combined  scale.  The  same 


104 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


fact  explains  the  wide  differences  in  the  standard  devia¬ 
tions.  The  standard  deviation  of  the  combined  scale  dis¬ 
tribution  when  reached  by  way  of  beta  is  larger  than  by 
way  of  alpha.  Here  the  difference  is  no  doubt  due  to  the 
fact  that  in  alpha  both  the  stupid  and  the  non-English 
speaking  piled  up  in  the  lower  class  intervals,  while  in  beta 
the  stupid  remained  in  the  lower  ranges  and  the  more  in¬ 
telligent  went  higher,  thus  increasing  the  standard  devia¬ 
tion.”  (p.  655.) 

It  is  also  possible  to  study  the  effect  of  using  different 
conversion  tables  in  the  case  of  Group  X,  the  special  ex¬ 
perimental  group  which  was  composed  of  individuals  who 
were  born  in  English  speaking  countries.  The  army  writers 
report  on  page  645  the  analysis  of  Group  X  in  this  manner. 
The  following  averages  and  standard  deviations  are  re¬ 
ported  for  the  different  methods  of  treating  the  data: 


AVERAGE  S.  D. 

(1)  Treating  all  1047  cases  as  measured  by  alpha  only. .  .  13.82710  3.03940 


(2)  Treating  all  cases  scoring  less  than  25  points  in  alpha 
as  beta  cases  and  the  remainder  as  alpha 
cases . 


13.88000 


3.03770 


(3)  Treating  all  cases  scoring  less  than  50  points  in  alpha 
as  beta  cases  and  the  remainder  as  alpha 
cases . 


13.94350 


3.20090 


(4)  Treating  all  cases  scoring  less  than  75  points  in  alpha 
as  beta  cases  and  the  remainder  as  alpha 
cases . 


13.909S1 


3.30997 


The  approximate  agreement  of  the  averages  derived  by 
the  four  different  methods  is  considered  by  the  army 
writers  to  be  a  proof  of  the  validity  of  the  transformation 
tables  which  they  publish  for  converting  alpha,  beta,  and 
Stanford-Binet  distributions  into  combined  scale  distri¬ 
butions. 

We  thus  have  two  extreme  instances  of  the  results  of 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


105 


treating  the  same  groups  in  different  ways.  If  we  take  ail 
cases  in  the  principal  sample  to  whom  were  given  both 
alpha  and  beta,  we  find  a  difference  of  1.383  (=±=0.0298)  in 
the  combined  scale  score  of  the  group  when  figured  first  as 
alpha  cases  and  then  as  beta  cases.  On  the  other  hand, 
since  the  combined  scale  was  empirically  derived  from  the 
1047  cases  in  Group  X,  it  makes  very  little  difference  how 
we  treat  the  results  of  that  group.  We  must  now  determine 
whether  the  distributions  of  alpha  scores  of  the  foreign 
born  groups  most  closely  resemble  the  distribution  of  alpha 
scores  in  Group  X,  or  the  distribution  of  the  alpha  scores 
of  the  4893  cases  who  had  both  alpha  and  beta.  This  cpies- 
tion  is  very  easily  answered  by  turning  to  Table  7,  which 
shows  the  alpha  score  distribution  of  the  following  groups: 

(1)  The  4893  cases  who  had  both  alpha  and  beta. 

(2)  The  1047  cases  in  the  special  experimental  group. 

(3)  The  679  cases  of  foreign  born  who  had  been  in  this 

country  from  0  to  5  years. 

(4)  The  1098  cases  of  foreign  born  who  had  been  in  this 

country  from  6  to  10  years. 

(5)  The  1777  cases  of  foreign  born  who  had  been  in  this 

country  from  0  to  10  years,  a  group  obtained  by  com¬ 
bining  (3)  and  (4). 

All  five  distributions  have  been  made  comparable  by  re¬ 
ducing  them  to  the  proportion  in  each  1000  scoring  at 
each  class  interval  of  the  alpha  examination.  Figure  34 
shows  graphically  the  relationships  between  the  4893  alpha 
and  beta  cases,  the  1047  cases  in  the  special  experimental 
group  and  the  1777  foreign  born  who  had  been  in  this 
country  for  10  years  or  less.  In  Figure  34  the  horizontal 
line  indicates  alpha  scores  and  the  vertical  line  shows  the 
proportion  in  each  1000. 

A  hasty  survey  of  Table  7  shows  that  our  group  of  4893 
cases  is  a  very  specially  selected  group.  97.3%  of  the  alpha 


Table  No.  7 

Distribution  of  alpha  scores  of  (1)  all  cases  in  Groups  I,  II, 
and  III  given  both  alpha  and  beta,  (2)  special  experi¬ 
mental  group,  (3)  foreign  born  in  U.  S.  0  to  5  years,  (4) 
foreign  born  in  U.  S.  6  to  10  years,  (5)  foreign  born  in 
U.  S.  0  to  10  years.  All  distributions  reduced  to  common 
denominator  of  number  per  1000  at  each  class  interval. 
Actual  distributions  may  be  found  on  pages  621,  654  and 
701  of  Memoir  XV. 


ALPIIA 

CLASS 

INTERVALS 

4893  cases 

TAKING  BOTH 

ALPHA  AND 

BETA 

1047  CASES 

IN  SPECIAL 

EXPERIMENTAL 

GROUP 

679  cases 

IN  U.  S. 

0  TO  5 
YEARS 

1098  CASES 

IN  U.  S. 

6  TO  10 
YEARS 

1777  cases 

IN  U.  S. 

0  TO  10 
YEARS 

185-189 

3 

180-184 

1 

2 

1 

1 

175-179 

1 

170-174 

2 

4 

i 

2 

165-169 

7 

2 

1 

1 

160-164 

4 

3 

2 

155-159 

5 

2 

2 

2 

150-154 

6 

4 

2 

145-149 

7 

6 

2 

3 

140-144 

9 

12 

5 

7 

135-139 

1 

12 

6 

8 

7 

130-134 

9 

3 

7 

6 

125-129 

20 

7 

7 

7 

120-124 

1 

13 

3 

6 

5 

115-119 

19 

9 

11 

10 

110-114 

1 

12 

19 

10 

14 

105-109 

21 

9 

14 

12 

100-104 

1 

19 

15 

17 

17 

95-99 

1 

39 

25 

16 

19 

90-94 

1 

24 

25 

27 

26 

85-89 

1 

30 

22 

37 

31 

80-84 

2 

41 

27 

40 

34 

75-79 

1 

25 

32 

31 

31 

70-74 

2 

39 

53 

29 

39 

65-69 

1 

38 

29 

46 

40 

60-64 

3 

44 

47 

51 

50 

55-59 

7 

38 

52 

48 

50 

50-54 

6 

35 

66 

55 

59 

45-49 

8 

40 

72 

56 

62 

40-44 

12 

44 

68 

75 

73 

35-39 

19 

53 

81 

75 

78 

30-34 

23 

53 

49 

61 

56 

25-29 

59 

48 

57 

68 

64 

20-24 

104 

53 

44 

62 

55 

15-19 

149 

31 

29 

27 

28 

10-14 

286 

42 

22 

29 

26 

5-9 

207 

46 

29 

21 

24 

0-4 

104 

67 

72 

47 

57 

106 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


107 


scores  of  the  4893  cases  are  below  a  total  alpha  score  of  50. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  distributions  of  alpha  scores  in  our 
groups  of  foreign  born  very  closely  resemble  the  distribu¬ 
tion  of  alpha  scores  of  Group  X,  the  special  experimental 
group  on  which  the  combined  scale  was  based.  If  we  com¬ 
pute  the  percentage  of  cases  in  each  residence  group  graded 
on  alpha  falling  below  a  total  alpha  score  of  50,  we  find  the 
following : 

PER  CENT.  GRADED  BY  ALPHA 

YEARS  OF  RESIDENCE  GROUP  AND  FALLING  BELOW  A  TOTAL 

ALPHA  SCORE  OF  50 

0  to  5  years .  52.4% 

6  to  10  years .  52 . 2% 

11  to  15  years .  48.7% 

16  to  20  years .  39. 1% 

Over  20  years .  36 . 0% 

Group  X  shows  47.7%  of  the  1047  cases  falling  below  a 
score  of  50  on  alpha.  This  group  is  approximately  the  same 
as  the  group  of  foreign  born  we  are  studying.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  group  of  4893  cases  shows  97.3%  of  the  alpha 
scores  below  50,  and  a  very  marked  piling  up  of  cases  below 
25  on  alpha.  The  relationships  between  the  distributions 
of  scores  in  the  three  groups  are  very  clearly  shown  in 
Figure  34. 

It  is  clear  that  the  combined  scale  wrould  penalize  the 
foreign  born  only  if  all  individuals  who  took  alpha  and 
beta  had  been  scored  as  alpha  cases.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  opposite  is  true,  for  every  individual  who  took  both 
alpha  and  beta  was  scored  as  a  beta  case,  and  the  alpha 
score  was  disregarded.  On  this  account  our  results  on  the 
foreign  born  are  not  subject  to  the  distortion  shown  by 
treating  4893  alpha  and  beta  cases  as  alpha  cases. 

The  4893  cases  treated  as  beta  cases,  not  as  alpha  cases, 
are  in  our  group  of  93,955  cases  representing  the  white 


108 


Figure  3 4.  Distributions  of  alpha  scores  of  three  groups:  (A) 
foreign  born  individuals  in  this  country  from  0  to  10  years,  (B) 
group  X,  the  special  experimental  group,  (C)  all  cases  who  took 
both  alpha  and  beta.  The  horizontal  scale  shows  alpha  scores, 
and  the  vertical  scale  proportions  in  each  thousand.  The  distri¬ 
butions  are  drawn  from  the  figures  given  in  Table  7.  To  prove 
that  the  combined  scale  does  not  penalize  the  foreign  born,  it  is 
only  necessary  to  show  that  the  distribution  of  alpha  scores  for 
the  foreign  born  is  approximately  similar  to  that  of  group  X, 
and  unlike  that  of  all  alpha-beta  cases.  This  similarity  is  appar¬ 
ent  from  our  chart.  The  men  given  both  alpha  and  beta  would 
have  been  penalized  if  they  had  been  scored  through  the  com¬ 
bined  scale  as  alpha  cases.  This  did  not  happen,  however,  for 
the  alpha  scores  of  these  men  were  disregarded,  and  only  the 
beta  record  used. 


110 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


draft,  and  the  chances  are  that  most  of  them  are  among 
the  12,492  members  of  this  group  who  were  born  in  foreign 
countries.  By  treating  the  group  as  alpha  cases,  we  show 
that  the  maximum  correction  factor  that  it  would  be  neces¬ 
sary  to  apply  to  a  group  graded  wrongly  by  alpha  would  be 
1.383  points  on  the  combined  scale.  But  inasmuch  as  all 
alpha  and  beta  cases  have  been  correctly  graded  by  using 
the  beta  conversion  tables,  there  remain  only  those  cases 
graded  by  alpha  alone  who  should  have  been  given  exam¬ 
ination  beta  as  well.  It  is  of  course  impossible  to  estimate 
the  number  of  cases  of  this  sort.  If  we  make  the  very  ex¬ 
travagant  assumption  that  25%  of  the  cases  graded  by 
alpha  alone  in  the  residence  group  “0  to  5  yrs.”  should  have 
been  graded  by  beta,  and  credit  each  of  these  cases  with 
1.383  points,  the  final  correction  that  it  would  be  necessary 
to  apply  to  our  average  would  be  0.064  points,  a  quantity 
which  is  negligible  in  view  of  the  magnitude  of  the  differ¬ 
ences  under  consideration.  Furthermore,  we  should  not  be 
justified  in  using  a  correction  factor  of  any  sort  unless  it 
could  be  shown  that  the  distribution  of  the  alpha  scores 
of  the  foreign  born  groups  was  very  unlike  that  of  the  dis¬ 
tribution  of  alpha  scores  of  the  special  experimental  group. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  these  distributions  as  shown  in  Figure 
34  are  very  much  alike. 

We  have  therefore  demonstrated  the  accuracy  of  the 
combined  scale  as  a  measure  of  the  intelligence  of  the 
groups  under  consideration.  We  must  therefore  accept  the 
conclusion  that  under  the  conditions  of  this  experiment  the 
differences  shown  in  the  average  scores  of  the  five  years 
of  residence  groups  indicate  real  differences  in  intelligence 
and  not  a  defect  in  the  measuring  scale.  Instead  of  con¬ 
sidering  that  our  curve  (Figure  33)  indicates  a  growth  of 
intelligence  with  increasing  length  of  residence,  we  are 
forced  to  take  the  reverse  of  the  picture  and  accept  the 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE  111 

hypothesis  that  the  curve  indicates  a  gradual  deterioration 
in  the  class  of  immigrants  examined  in  the  army,  who  came 
to  this  country  in  each  succeeding  five  year  period  since 
1902. 


SECTION  V 


ANALYSIS  OF  IMMIGRATION  TO  THE 
UNITED  STATES 


The  fact  that  the  average  intelligence  of  the  immigrants 
examined  in  the  army  who  came  to  this  country  in  each 
successive  five  year  period  since  1902  becomes  progres¬ 
sively  lower  with  each  succeeding  period  indicates  that  an 
explanation  of  this  phenomenon  might  be  found  in  a  change 
in  the  character  of  immigration.  We  must,  therefore,  turn 
to  the  statistics  on  immigration  to  see  if  any  such  change 
can  be  detected.  Table  8  shows  the  percentage  of  the  total 
immigration  coming  from  various  countries  in  the  periods 
roughly  corresponding  to  the  five  years  of  residence  periods 
covered  in  the  army  statistics.  The  data  on  immigration 
were  obtained  from  the  Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United 
States  for  the  years  1900,  1910,  and  1920.  Table  8  reads 
as  follows: — in  the  years  1887  to  1897,  the  period  roughly 
corresponding  with  our  residence  group  “over  20  yrs.,” 
10.9%  of  our  total  immigration  came  from  England,  2.7% 
from  Scotland,  1%  from  Holland,  etc.  The  relations  shown 
in  Table  8  are  shown  graphically  in  Figure  35.  Each  com¬ 
plete  bar  in  Figure  35  represents  100%.  The  per  cent,  which 
each  country  has  contributed  to  the  total  immigration  of 
each  period  has  been  scaled  off  proportionately  in  each  bar. 

These  figures  show  that  the  most  abrupt  change  in  the 
character  of  immigration  came  between  the  periods  1887- 
1897  and  1898-1902.  These  periods  show  a  very  marked 
decrease  in  the  proportion  of  the  immigration  from  Eng¬ 
land  and  Germany,  and  a  substantial  decrease  in  the  pro¬ 
portion  of  immigration  from  Scotland,  Sweden,  and 


11 2 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE  113 

Table  No.  8 


Per  cent,  of  total  immigration  coming  from  various  coun- 

o  o 

tries  during  periods  roughly  corresponding  to  the  five 
years  of  residence  groups. 


1913-1917 

1908-1912 

1903-1907 

1898-1902 

1887-1897 

0  to  5 

6  to  10 

11  TO  15 

16  to  20 

OVER  20 

TEAES 

YEARS 

YEARS 

YEARS 

YEARS 

England . 

3.7 

5.1 

4.6 

2.6 

10.9 

Scotland . 

1.0 

1.8 

1.4 

0.5 

2.7 

Holland . 

0.6 

0.8 

0.5 

0.4 

1.0 

Germany . 

2.5 

3.5 

4.0 

4.8 

18.7 

Denmark . 

0.7 

0.7 

0.8 

0.8 

1.7 

Canada . 

13.5 

6.0 

0.6 

0.2 

No  record 

Sweden . 

1.5 

2.0 

2.8 

4.6 

7.3 

Norway . 

1.1 

1.5 

2.3 

2.4 

2.7 

Belgium . 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.3 

0.6 

Ireland . 

2.4 

3.3 

3.8 

7.2 

11.9 

Austria . 

16.7 

21.8 

24  9 

23.6 

11.6 

Turkey . 

2.6 

3.4 

1.9 

0.7 

No  record 

Greece . 

3.7 

2.5 

1.8 

1.1 

0.2 

Russia . 

17.8 

18.3 

18.3 

17.8 

12.0 

Ttalv . 

20.0 

20.2 

23.7 

25.8 

12.4 

Ail  others . 

11.7 

8.6 

8.1 

7.2 

6.3 

Ireland.  On  the  other  hand,  the  proportion  of  immigrants 
coming  from  Austria,  Russia,  and  Italy  showed  a  marked 
increase  at  this  time.  In  general  the  following  relations 
held : 

England  showed  a  decided  drop  in  the  proportion  of  im¬ 
migrants  furnished  between  the  period  1887-1897  and  the 
period  1898-1902.  There  has  been  a  slight  increase  since 
1898,  but  the  proportion  is  less  than  5%,  when  formerly  it 
was  over  10%. 

Scotland  contributed  2.7%  of  our  total  immigration  in 
the  period  1887-1897,  and  since  that  time,  never  more  than 

2%. 

Holland  never  contributed  more  than  1%  of  our  total 
immigration  in  any  period  covered  by  these  figures. 

Germany  contributed  18.7%  of  our  immigration  in  the 
period  1887-1897,  4.8%  in  the  period  1898-1902,  and  since 
that  time  the  proportion  has  decreased  with  each  succeed¬ 
ing  period. 


DATES  1887 

TO 

1897 

YEARS  over 
20 


ENGLAND 

SCOTLAND 

HOLLAND 


GERMANY 

DENMARK 

SWEDEN 


1898 

1903 

1908 

1913 

DATES 

TO 

TO 

TO 

TO 

1902 

1907 

1912 

1917 

16  20 

11  15 

6  10 

0-5 

YEARS 

ENGLAND 

SCOTLAND 

HOLLAND 

GERMANY 

DENMARK 


CANADA 


SWEDEN 

NORWAY 

BELGIUM 

IRELAND 


AUSTRIA 


TURKEY 

GREECE 


RUSSIA 


GREECE 

RUSSIA 


ITALY 


ITALY 


ALL  OTHERS 


ALL  OTHERS 


114 


Figure  35.  Analysis  of  immigration  by  countries.  Each  vertical 
bar  represents  100%,  and  each  subdivision  represents  the  per 
cent,  of  the  total  immigration  that  each  country  furnished  in  the 
period  under  consideration.  It  is  apparent  that  the  most  sudden 
change  in  the  character  of  immigration  came  between  the  per¬ 
iods  1887-1897  and  1898-1902.  On  the  other  hand,  the  curve 
showing  the  relationship  between  years  of  residence  and  average 
intelligence  shows  no  correspondingly  large  diffrence  in  the  in¬ 
telligence  of  immigrants  who  came  here  in  these  periods  (Figure 
33,  Groups  “16  to  20“  and  “over  20”).  Figure  33  shows  a  large 
difference  between  the  “16  to  20  yrs.”  and  “11  to  15  yrs.” 
groups,  but  the  chart  above  shows  no  marked  difference  in  the 
immigration  coming  to  this  country  in  the  corresponding  five- 
year  periods,  1898-1902  and  1903-1907. 


115 


116 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


Denmark  contributed  1.7%  of  our  immigration  in  the 
period  1887-1897  and  since  that  time  less  than  1%  in  each 
period. 

The  immigration  from  Canada  was  not  reported  prior  to 
1896.  There  was  a  very  marked  increase  in  the  percentage 
of  our  total  immigration  coming  from  Canada  in  the  period 
1908-1912  and  again  in  the  period  1913-1917. 

The  proportion  of  immigration  coming  from  Sweden  has 
decreased  steadily  from  7.3%  in  the  period  1887-1897  to 
1.5%  in  the  period  1913-1917.  A  similar  decrease  from 
2.7%  to  1.1%  is  shown  by  Norway  during  the  same  periods. 

Belgium  has  contributed  less  than  1%  to  the  total  immi- 
gration  in  each  period  under  consideration.  =-T'| 

The  immigration  from  Ireland  has  decreased  in  propor¬ 
tion  from  11.9%  to  2.4%  in  the  five  year  periods  shown. 

All  other  countries  show  a  gain  in  the  proportion  of  im¬ 
migrants  which  they  supply.  Austria  supplied  11.6%  in  the 
period  1887-1897,  this  proportion  jumping  to  23.6%  in  the 
period  1898-1902  and  remaining  above  20%  until  the  last 
period  1913-1917,  a  period  which  reflects  the  war  conditions 
in  Europe. 

The  proportion  of  immigration  from  Russia  has  increased 
from  12%  prior  to  1898  to  18%  since  that  time.  The  pro¬ 
portion  of  immigration  from  Italy,  which  was  about  12% 
prior  to  1898,  has  never  been  below  20%  since.  Turkey  and 
Greece  show  a  small  but  increasing  proportion  in  the  suc¬ 
cessive  periods  covered. 

Enough  evidence  has  been  cited  to  show  that  there  has 
been*some  change  in  the  character  of  our  immigration  dur¬ 
ing  the  periods  covered  in  the  army  report.  The  gradual 
decline  in  the  average  intelligence  of  the  more  recent  im¬ 
migrants  examined  in  the  army  might  be  due  to  these 
changes  in  the  source  of  supply.  If  this  hypothesis  is  correct, 
we  should  expect  to  find  differences  between  the  scores  of 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


117 


the  representatives  of  each  country  making  up  our  total 
group  of  the  foreign  born  white  draft. 


SECTION  VI 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  FOREIGN  BORN  WHITE 
DRAFT  BY  COUNTRY  OF  BIRTH 


The  army  reports  show  distributions  of  psychological 
test  scores  for  all  of  the  12,492  foreign  born  cases  classified 
according  to  the  country  of  birth,  although  these  figures 
for  each  country  are  not  sub-divided  again  into  years  of 
residence  groups.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  when  we  break  up 
the  12,492  cases  according  to  the  country  of  birth,  the 
figures  from  certain  countries  become  very  small;  so  that 
further  sub-division  would  make  the  results  valueless.  We 
can,  however,  examine  the  figures  which  give  us  an  intelli¬ 
gence  measure  of  the  foreign  born  men  of  our  army  and  take 
them  for  what  they  are  worth.  Even  though  the  number 
of  cases  is  very  small  for  certain  nationalities,  we  previous¬ 
ly  saw  that  the  reliability  of  the  difference  does  not  depend 
entirely  on  the  number  of  cases,  but  on  three  factors — the 
size  of  the  difference,  the  variability  of  each  series  of  meas¬ 
urements,  and  the  number  of  cases  in  each  series. 

The  same  tables  from  which  wTe  derived  the  12,492  for¬ 
eign  born  cases  (Tables  207,  208,  209  and  210;  pp.  692,  693 
and  694)  give  the  classification  of  test  scores  by  country  of 
birth.  From  these  tabulations  the  combined  scale  score  of 
each  nativity  group  has  been  computed.  The  actual  dis¬ 
tributions  of  these  combined  scale  scores  are  shown  in 
Table  9.  These  distributions  reduced  to  percentages  are 
shown  in  Table  10. 

The  differences  found,  expressed  in  terms  of  the  per  cent, 
from  each  country  who  exceed  the  average  native  born 
American,  are  as  follows: 


118 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


119 


England 

67.3% 

Belgium 

35.3% 

Scotland 

58.8% 

Austria 

28.2% 

Holland 

58.1% 

Ireland 

26.2% 

Germany 

48.7% 

Turkey 

25.3% 

Denmark 

47.8% 

Greece 

21.3% 

Canada 

47.3% 

Russia 

18.9% 

Sweden 

41.7% 

Italy 

14.4% 

Nor  wav 

37.3% 

Poland 

12.2% 

The  actual  differences  between  the  average  scores  on  the 
combined  scale  of  each  country  and  every  other  country, 
together  with  the  probable  errors  of  the  differences,  and 
the  ratios  of  the  probable  errors  of  the  differences  to  the 
differences  are  shown  in  Tables  11  to  27  inclusive.  In  these 
tables,  the  convention  lias  been  followed  of  marking  a  dif¬ 
ference  “unreliable”  if  the  actual  difference  was  less  than 
four  times  the  probable  error  of  the  difference.  The  coun¬ 
tries  tabulated  are  arranged  in  the  order  of  the  increasing 
reliability  of  the  differences  found,  above  and  below  the 
average  of  the  country  with  which  they  are  compared. 

The  relations  between  the  averages  shown  in  Table  9  are 
shown  graphically  in  Figure  36.  For  the  convenience  of 
those  who  use  Stanford-Binet  “mental  ages,”  one  side  of  the 
scale  in  Figure  36  has  been  drawn  so  as  to  read  in  “mental 
ages,”  and  the  other  side  to  read  in  combined  scale  units — 
the  units  in  which  our  averages  and  measures  of  variability 
have  been  calculated.  The  Stanford-Binet  “mental  age” 
scale  was  calculated  from  the  regression  equation  given  on 
page  654  of  Memoir  XV: 

Mental  age  (in  years)  =  0.778  C.S. +  2.606. 


Table  No.  9 

Analysis  of  foreign  born  white  draft  by  country  of  birth. 
Distribution  of  scores  on  the  combined  scale,  of  men 
born  in  each  country. 


COMBINED 

SCALE 

ENGLAND 

SCOTLAND 

HOLLAND 

GERMANY 

DENMARK 

CANADA 

SWEDEN 

NORWAY 

INTERVALS 

24.0-24.9 

0.1 

23.0-23.9 

0.7 

•  •  •  • 

.... 

22 . 0-22 . 9 

1.7 

0.5 

0.1 

0.5 

.... 

0.6 

.... 

21.0-21.9 

3  0 

1.4 

0.7 

1.2 

0.1 

4.3 

0.5 

0.2 

20.0-20.9 

6.0 

1.9 

1.6 

2.4 

0.5 

8.7 

2.2 

1.2 

19.0-19.9 

10.7 

2.6 

3.0 

5.1 

1.9 

15.8 

5.4 

3.2 

18.0-18.9 

21.1 

3.7 

4.5 

7.1 

5.8 

28.2 

10.2 

8.4 

17.0-17.9 

33.7 

8.9 

7.2 

14.7 

13.7 

47.8 

21.3 

18.4 

16.0-16.9 

48.9 

17.9 

12.9 

24.7 

26.4 

77.2 

44.3 

34.0 

15.0-15.9 

64.2 

20.8 

20.4 

34.4 

39.9 

104.4 

72.6 

59.1 

14.0-14.9 

71.5 

22.9 

25.1 

46.3 

52.0 

135.2 

101.9 

81.4 

13.0-13.9 

65  7 

23.0 

25.5 

57.1 

64.0 

163.2 

125.6 

98.5 

12.0-12.9 

40.9 

18.0 

18.6 

53.2 

54.2 

144.4 

118.3 

101  2 

11.0-11.9 

19.2 

11.0 

10.2 

31.5 

31.2 

93.5 

79.3 

79.5 

10.0-10.9 

10.2 

6.1 

5.8 

16.4 

18.2 

60.2 

51.4 

55.8 

9. 0-9. 9 

6.1 

3.5 

2.8 

8.0 

10.3 

41.7 

31.7 

36.4 

8. 0-8. 9 

3.7 

2.1 

1.1 

3.5 

4.6 

25.0 

16.2 

19.8 

7 . 0-7 . 9 

2.2 

1.1 

0.4 

1.3 

1.7 

13.0 

7.0 

9.2 

6. 0-6. 9 

1.0 

0.5 

0.1 

0 . 5 

0.4 

5.6 

2.4 

3.4 

5. 0-5. 9 

0.3 

0.1 

.  .  .  . 

0.1 

0.1 

2.1 

0.6 

1.0 

4 . 0-4 . 9 

0.1 

*  •  •  • 

.... 

0.8 

0.1 

0.3 

3. 0-3. 9 

.... 

.  .  .  . 

0.2 

.... 

.... 

2. 0-2. 9 

.... 

.  .  .  . 

0.1 

.... 

.... 

1.0-1. 9 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

No.  cases . 

411 

146 

140 

308 

325 

972 

691 

611 

Average . 

14.87 

14.34 

14.32 

13.88 

13.69 

13.66 

13.30 

12.98 

S.  D . 

2.57 

2.63 

2.39 

2.43 

2.23 

2.67 

2.38 

2.47 

BELGIUM 

IRELAND 

AUSTRIA 

TURKEY 

GREECE 

RUSSIA 

ITALY 

POLAND 

o’i 

0.6 

6.2 

1.1 

6.4 

0.3 

2.3 

0.8 

2.0 

1.4 

0.8 

0.2 

3.8 

2.1 

0.2 

3.3 

2.0 

1.5 

0.8 

7.7 

5.9 

0.2 

0.8 

7.5 

3.0 

4.3 

3.0 

20.7 

14.4 

0.9 

2.4 

13.5 

5.0 

9.6 

8.2 

40.0 

32.8 

2.7 

7.0 

23.7 

10.1 

15.6 

14.8 

62.7 

70.0 

5.8 

13.3 

38.2 

20.1 

24.4 

26.5 

97.7 

136.4 

11.1 

16.6 

59.4 

32.1 

36.9 

49.8 

152.8 

235 . 0 

18.3 

22.3 

102.0 

46.8 

57.2 

83.0 

233.6 

377.2 

33.1 

22.6 

122.6 

50.8 

67.4 

99.2 

301.1 

508.7 

47.2 

16 . 5 

94.0 

38.2 

56.9 

88.5 

317.0 

569.2 

53.8 

11.0 

68.9 

29.3 

47.8 

73.1 

316.7 

596.3 

56.0 

7.3 

55 . 0 

24.7 

41.0 

57.3 

299.2 

573 . 6 

55.2 

4.4 

35 .7 

17.5 

28.9 

35.5 

226.0 

423.4 

43.4 

2.6 

18.6 

10.6 

17.3 

19.0 

141.3 

255.7 

28.5 

1.3 

8.0 

5 . 4 

8.2 

8.5 

71.1 

126.6 

15.2 

0 . 5 

3  0 

2.3 

3.3 

3.2 

29.9 

53.0 

6.8 

0.2 

1.0 

0.9 

1.2 

1.0 

11.2 

19.5 

2.6 

.... 

0.3 

0.3 

0.3 

0.3 

3.4 

6.0 

0.9 

.... 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

1.0 

1.8 

0.3 

.... 

0.2 

0.4 

129 

658 

301 

423 

572 

2340 

4009 

382 

12.79 

12.32 

12.27 

12.02 

11.90 

11.34 

11.01 

10.74 

2.42 

2.60 

2 . 75 

2.75 

2.45 

2.83 

2.60 

2.59 

121 


Table  No.  10 


Analysis  of  foreign  bom  white  draft  by  country  of  birth. 
Per  cent,  from  each  country  scoring  at  each  interval  on 
the  combined  scale. 


COMBINED 

SCALE 

INTERVALS 

ENGLAND 

SCOTLAND 

HOLLAND 

GERMANY 

DENMARK 

CANADA 

SWEDEN 

NORWAY 

j  23.0-23.9 

0.2 

22.0-22.9 

0.4 

6.3 

6.1 

6.2 

o.i 

.... 

•  •  •  • 

21.0-21.9 

0.7 

1.0 

0.5 

0.4 

0.4 

0.1 

.... 

20.0-20.9 

1.5 

1.3 

1.1 

0.8 

6.2 

0.9 

0.3 

0.2 

19.0-19.9 

2.6 

1.8 

2.1 

1.7 

0.6 

1.6 

0.8 

0.5 

18.0-18.9 

5.1 

2.5 

3.2 

2.3 

1.8 

2.9 

1.5 

1.4 

17.0-17.9 

8.2 

6.1 

5.1 

4.8 

4.2 

4.9 

3  1 

3.0 

16.0-16.9 

11.9 

12.2 

9.3 

8.0 

8.2 

7.9 

6.4 

5.5 

15.0-15.9 

15.6 

14.3 

14.6 

11.2 

12.3 

10.8 

10.5 

9.7 

14.0-14.9 

17.4 

15.7 

17.9 

15.0 

16.0 

13.9 

14.8 

13.3 

13.0-13.9 

16.0 

15.8 

18.2 

18.5 

19.7 

16.8 

18.1 

16.1 

12.0-12.9 

10.0 

12.3 

13.3 

17.3 

16.6 

14.9 

17.2 

16.6 

11.0-11.9 

4.7 

7.5 

7.3 

10.2 

9.6 

9.6 

11.4 

13.0 

10.0-10.9 

2.5 

4.2 

4.1 

5.3 

5.6 

6.2 

7.5 

9.1 

90-9.9 

1.5 

2.4 

2.0 

2.6 

3.2 

4.3 

4.6 

6.0 

8. 0-8. 9 

0.9 

1.4 

0.8 

1.1 

1.4 

2.6 

2.3 

3.3 

7. 0-7. 9 

0.5 

0.8 

0.3 

0.4 

0.5 

1.3 

1.0 

1.5 

6. 0-6. 9 

0.2 

0.4 

0.1 

0.2 

0.1 

0.6 

0.3 

0.6 

5. 0-5. 9 

0.1 

.... 

0.2 

0.1 

0.2 

4. 0-4. 9 

.... 

0.1 

.... 

.... 

30-3.9 

•  <  •  • 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

2. 0-2. 9 

— 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

•  •  *  * 

.... 

1 2-2 


BELGIUM 

IRELAND 

AUSTRIA 

TURKEY 

GREECE 

RUSSIA 

ITALY 

POLAND 

.... 

0:2 

o’.i 

o',  i 

.... 

o!l 

.... 

.... 

.... 

0.3 

0.5 

0.2 

0.2 

.... 

0.2 

0.5 

0.7 

0.4 

6.1 

0.4 

o.i 

0.1 

0.6 

1.1 

1.0 

1.0 

0.5 

0.9 

0.4 

0.2 

1.9 

2.1 

1.7 

2.3 

1.4 

1.7 

0.8 

0.7 

5.4 

3.6 

3.4 

3.7 

2.6 

2.6 

1.7 

1.5 

10.3 

5.8 

6.6 

5.8 

4.7 

4.2 

3.4 

2.9 

12.9 

9.0 

10.6 

8.7 

8.7 

6.5 

5.8 

4.8 

17.3 

15.5 

15.6 

13.5 

14.5 

10.1 

9.4 

8.7 

17.5 

18.7 

16.9 

15.9 

17.4 

12.9 

12.7 

12.3 

12.8 

14.3 

12.7 

13.4 

15.4 

13.5 

14.2 

14.1 

8.5 

10.5 

9.7 

11.3 

12.8 

13.5 

14.9 

14.6 

5.6 

8.3 

8.2 

9.7 

10.0 

12.8 

14.3 

14.4 

3.4 

5.4 

5.8 

6.8 

6.2 

9.7 

10.5 

11.4 

2.0 

2.8 

3.5 

4.1 

3.3 

6.0 

6.4 

7.5 

1.0 

1.2 

1.8 

1.9 

1.5 

3.0 

3.1 

4.0 

0.4 

0.5 

0.8 

0.8 

0.6 

1.3 

1.7 

1.8 

0.2 

0.2 

0.3 

0.3 

0.2 

0.5 

0.5 

0.7 

.... 

.... 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.2 

.... 

.... 

.... 

0.1 

123 


124 


JL-J. 


Figure  36.  The  relative  standing  of  the  nativity  groups  according 
to  their  average  intelligence.  The  averages  of  the  nativity  groups 
are  taken  from  Table  9.  The  averages  of  the  white  officers  and 
negro  draft  (from  Table  1)  and  the  native  born  white  draft 
(from  Table  2)  are  also  shown.  The  left  hand  scale  reads  in 
units  of  the  combined  scale.  The  right  hand  scale  reads  in 
units  of  “mental  age”  representing  what  would  be  the  approxi¬ 
mately  equivalent  scores  on  the  Stanford  revision  of  the  Binet- 
Simon  scale.  In  interpreting  the  differences  shown,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  all  the  differences  are  not  equally  reliable,  for 
the  reliability  of  the  measurements  depends  on  the  number  of 
cases  in  each  group  and  the  variability  of  the  group.  The  relia¬ 
bility  of  all  the  differences  is  shown  in  Tables  1 1  to  27. 


125 


Table  No.  11 

Differences  between  ENGLAND  and  other  countries 


Number  of  cases  411 
Average  score  14.87 
Standard  deviation  2.57 


Scotland 

-0.53 

Holland 

-0.55 

Germany 

-0.99 

Denmark 

-1.18 

Canada 

— 1.21 

Belgium 

-2.08 

United  States 

-1.10 

Sweden 

-1.57 

Norway 

-1.89 

Austria 

-2.60 

Turkey 

-2.85 

Ireland 

-2.55 

Greece 

-2.97 

Poland 

-4.13 

Russia 

-3.53 

Italy 

-3.86 

±0.1695  (3.1)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1606  (3.4)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1264  (7.8) 

±0.1192  (9.9) 

±0.1030  (11.7) 

±0.1669  (12.5) 

±0.0855  (12.9) 

±0.1049  (14.9) 

±0.1087  (17.4) 

±0.1368  (19.0) 

±0.1241  (22.9) 

±0.1094  (23.3) 

±0.1097  (27.0) 

±0.1236  (33.4) 

±0.0940  (37.5) 

±0.0897  (43.0) 


1 2« 


Table  No.  12 


Differences  between  SCOTLAND  and  other  countries 


Number  of  cases  146 
Average  score  14.34 
Standard  deviation  2.63 


England 

+  0.53 

Holland 

-0.02 

Germany 

-0.46 

United  States 

-0.57 

Denmark 

-0.65 

Canada 

-0.68 

Sweden 

-1.04 

Belgium 

-1.55 

Norway 

-1.36 

Austria 

-2.07 

Ireland 

-2.02 

Turkey 

-2.32 

Greece 

-2.44 

Russia 

-3.00 

Poland 

-3.60 

Italy 

-3.33 

±0.1695  (3.1)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1999  (0.1)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1736  (2.6)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1466  (3.9)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1685  (3.9)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1575  (4.3) 

±0.1587  (6.5) 

±0.2050  (7.6) 

±0.1612  (8.4) 

±0.1813  (11.4) 

±0.1617  (12.5) 

±0.1720  (13.5) 

±0.1619  (15.0) 

±0.1517  (19.8) 

±0.1716  (20.9) 

±0.1491  (22.3) 


127 


Table  No.  13 


Differences  between  HOLLAND  and  other  countries 


Number  of  cases  140 
Average  score  14. 32 
Standard  deviation  2.39 


England 

+  0.55 

±0.1606 

(3.4) 

Scotland 

+  0.02 

±0.1999 

(0.1) 

Germany 

-0.44 

±0.1649 

(2.7) 

Denmark 

-0.63 

±0.1595 

(3.9) 

United  States 

-0.55 

±0.1362 

(4.0) 

Canada 

-0.66 

±0.1479 

(4.4) 

Sweden 

-1.02 

±0.1491 

(6.8) 

Belgium 

-1.53 

±0.1977 

(7.7) 

Norway 

-1.34 

±0.1518 

(8.8) 

Austria 

—  2.05 

±0.1731 

(11.8) 

Ireland 

-2.00 

±0.1523 

(13.1) 

Turkey 

-2.30 

±0.1632 

(14.1) 

Greece 

-2.42 

±0.1525 

(15.9) 

Russia 

-2.98 

±0.1417 

(21.0) 

Poland 

-3.58 

±0.1628 

(21.9) 

Italv 

-3.31 

±0.1388 

(23.9) 

Difference  unreliable. 
Lfffference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 


128 


Table  No.  14 


Differences  between  GERMANY  and  other  countries 

Number  of  cases  308 
Average  score  13.88 
Standard  deviation  2.43 


England 

+  0.99 

Holland 

+  0.44 

Scotland 

+  0.46 

United  States 

-0.11 

Denmark 

-0.19 

Canada 

-0.22 

Sweden 

-0.58 

Belgium 

-1.09 

Norway 

-0.90 

Austria 

-1.61 

Ireland 

-1.56 

Turkey 

-1.86 

Greece 

-1.98 

Poland 

-3.14 

Russia 

-2.54 

Italy 

-2.87 

±0.1264  (7.8) 
±0.1649  (2.7) 
±0.1736  (2.6) 
±0.0934  (1.1) 
±0.1249  (1.5) 
±0.1097  (2.0) 
±0.1114  (5.2) 
±0.1711  (6.3) 
±0.1150  (7.8) 
±0.1418  (11.3) 
±0.1157  (13.5) 
±0.1297  (14.3) 
±0.1159  (17.1) 
±0.1291  (24.3) 
±0.1012  (25.1) 
±0.0972  (29.5) 


Difference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 


129 


Table  No.  15 


Differences  between  the  UNITED  STATES  and  other 
countries.  (Native  born  white  draft  used.) 

Number  of  cases  81,465 
Average  score  13.77 
Standard  deviation  2.86 


England 

+  1.10 

±0.0855  (12.9) 

Holland 

+  0.55 

±0.1362  (4.0) 

Scotland 

+  0.57 

±0.1466  (3.9) 

Germany 

+  0.11 

±0.0934  (1.1) 

Denmark 

-0.08 

±0.0S35  (1.0) 

Canada 

-0.11 

±0.0582  (1.9) 

Belgium 

-0.98 

±0.1437  (6.8) 

Sweden 

-0.47 

±0.0614  (7.6) 

Norway 

-0.79 

±0.0678  (11.6) 

Austria 

-1.50 

±0.1071  (14.0) 

Turkey 

-1.75 

±0.0904  (19.3) 

Ireland 

-1.45 

±0.0688  (21.2) 

Greece 

-1.87 

±0.0693  (26.9) 

Poland 

-3.03 

±0.0896  (33.8) 

Russia 

-2.43 

±0.0400  (60.7) 

Italv 

i/ 

-2.76 

±0.0285  (96.8) 

Difference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 


130 


Table  No.  16 


Differences  between  DENMARK  and  other  countries 


Number  of  cases  325 
Average  score  13.69 
Standard  deviation  2.23 


England 

+  1.18 

Scotland 

+  0.65 

Holland 

+  0.63 

Germanv 

+  0.19 

United  States 

+  0.08 

Canada 

-0.03 

Sweden 

-0.39 

Belgium 

-0.90 

Norway 

-0.71 

Austria 

-1.42 

Ireland 

-1.37 

Turkey 

-1.67 

Greece 

-1.79 

Poland 

-2.95 

Russia 

-2.35 

Italy 

-2.68 

±0.1192  (9.9) 

±0.1685  (3.9)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1595  (3.9)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1249  (1.5)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.0835  (1.0)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1013  (0.3)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1032  (3.7)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1659  (5.4) 

±0.1071(6.6) 

±0.1355  (10.5) 

±0.1079  (12.7) 

±0.1228  (13.6) 

±0.1081  (16.5) 

±0.1221  (24.1) 

±0.0921  (25.5) 

±0.0877  (30.5) 


131 


Table  No.  17 


Differences  between  CANADA  and  other  countries 


England 

Holland 

Scotland 

Germany 

United  States 

Denmark 

Sweden 

Belgium 

Norway 

Austria 

Ireland 

Turkey 

Greece 

Poland 

Russia 

Italy 


Number  of  cases  972 
Average  score  13.66 


Standard  deviation 


+  1.21 

±0.1030 

(11.7) 

+  0.66 

±0.1479 

(4.4) 

+  0.68 

±0.1575 

(4.3) 

+  0.22 

±0.1097 

(2.0) 

+  0.11 

±0.0582 

(1.9) 

+  0.03 

±0.1013 

(0.3) 

-0.36 

±0.0840 

(4.3) 

00 

d 

1 

±0.1547 

(5.6) 

-0.68 

±0.0888 

(7.6) 

-1.39 

±0.1215 

(11.4) 

-1.34 

±0.0896 

(14.9) 

-1.64 

±0.1071 

(15.3) 

-1.76 

±0.0900 

(19.6) 

-2.92 

±0.1064 

(27.4) 

-2.32 

±0.0700 

(33.1) 

—  2.65 

±0.0641 

(41.3) 

2.67 


Difference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 


132 


Table  No.  18 


Differences  between  SWEDEN  and  other  countries 

Number  of  cases  691 
Average  score  13.30 
Standard  deviation  2.38 


England 

+  1.57 

United  States 

+  0.47 

Holland 

+  1.02 

Scotland 

+  1.04 

Germany 

+  0.58 

Canada 

+  0.36 

Denmark 

+  0.39 

Belgium 

-0.51 

Norway 

-0.32 

Austria 

-1.03 

Ireland 

-0.98 

Turkey 

-1.28 

Greece 

-1.40 

Poland 

—  2.56 

Russia 

-1.96 

Italy 

-2.29 

±0.1049  (14.9) 

±0.0614  (7.6) 

±0.1491  (6.8) 

±0.1587  (6.5) 

±0.1114  (5.2) 

±0.0840  (4.3) 

±0.1032  (3.7)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1559  (3.3)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.0910  (3.5)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1231  (8.4) 

±0.0918  (10.6) 

±0.1089  (11.8) 

±0.0921  (15.2) 

±0.1082  (23.6) 

±0.0727  (26.9) 

±0.0671  (34.1) 


133 


Table  No.  19 


Differences  between  NORWAY  and  other  countries 

Number  of  cases  611 
Average  score  12.98 
Standard  deviation  2.47 


England 

United  States 

Holland 

Scotland 

Germany 

Canada 

Denmark 

Sweden 

Belgium 

Austria 

Ireland 

Turkey 

Greece 

Poland 

Russia 

Italy 


+  1.89  ±0.1087  (17.4) 
+  0.79  ±0.0678  (11.6) 
+  1.34  ±0.1518  (8.8) 
+  1.36  ±0.1612  (8.4) 
+  0.90  ±0.1150  (7.8) 
+0.68  ±0.0888  (7.6) 
+  0.71  ±0.1071  (6.6) 
+  0.32  ±0.0910(3.5) 
-0.19  ±0.1586  (1.2) 
-0.71  ±0.1264  (5.6) 
-0.66  ±0.0961  (6.8) 
-0.96  ±0.1126  (8.5) 
-1.08  ±0.0965  (11.2) 
-2.24  ±0.1119  (20.1) 
-1.64  ±0.0795  (20.6) 
-1.97  ±0.0729  (27.0) 


Difference  unreliable. 
Difference  unreliable. 


134 


Table  No.  20 


Differences  between  BELGIUM  and  other  countries 


Number  of  cases  129 
Average  score  12.79 
Standard  deviation  2.42 


England 

Holland 

Scotland 

LTiited  States 

Germanv 

Canada 

Denmark 

Sweden 

Norway 

Ireland 

Austria 

Turkey 

Greece 

Russia 

Poland 

Italy 


CO 

o 

oi 

+ 

±0.1669 

(12.5) 

+  1.53 

±0.1977 

(7.7) 

+ 1.55 

±0.2050 

(7.6) 

+  0.98 

±0.1437 

(6.8) 

+  1.09 

±0.1711 

(6.3) 

+  0.87 

±0.1547 

(5.6) 

+  0.90 

±0.1659 

(5.4) 

+  0.51 

±  0.1559 

(3.3) 

Difference 

unreliable. 

+  0.19 

±0.1586 

(1.2) 

Difference 

unreliable. 

1 

o 

-u 

±  0.1590 

(2.9) 

Difference 

unreliable. 

-0.52 

±0.1789 

(2.9) 

Difference 

unreliable. 

1 

© 

-> 

-> 

±0.1695 

(4.5) 

1 

o 

bo 

o 

±0.1592 

(5.6) 

-1.45 

±0.1488 

(9.8) 

-2.05 

±0.1691 

(12.1) 

-1.78 

±0.1462 

(12.2) 

135 


Table  No.  21 


Differences  between  IRELAND  and  other  countries 

Number  of  cases  658 
Average  score  12.32 
Standard  deviation  2.60 


England 

United  States 

Canada 

Germany 

Holland 

Denmark 

Scotland 

Sweden 

Norway 

Belgium 

Austria 

Turkey 

Greece 

Russia 

Poland 

Italy 


+2.55  ±0.1094  (23.3) 

+  1.45  ±0.0688  (21.2) 

+  1.34  ±0.0896  (14.9) 

+  1.56  ±0.1157  (13.5) 

+  2.00  ±0.1523  (13.1) 

+  1.37  ±0.1079  (12.7) 

+2.02  ±0.1617  (12.5) 

+0.98  ±0.0918  (10.6) 

+  0.66  ±0.0961  (6.8) 

+0.47  ±0.1590(2.9)  Difference  unreliable. 

—  0.05  ±0.1269  (0.4)  Difference  unreliable. 

—  0.30  ±0.1132(2.7)  Difference  unreliable. 
-0.42  ±0.0972  (4.3) 

-0.98  ±0.0791  (12.4) 

-1.58  ±0.1126  (14.0) 

-1.31  ±0.0739  (17.7) 


136 


Table  No.  22 


Differences  between  AUSTRIA  and  other  countries 

Number  of  cases  301 
Average  score  12.27 
Standard  deviation  2.75 


England 

+  2.60 

Enited  States 

+ 1 .50 

Holland 

+  2.05 

Canada 

+  1.39 

Scotland 

+  2.07 

Germany 

+  1.61 

Denmark 

+  1.42 

Sweden 

+  1.03 

Norway 

+  0.71 

Belgium 

+  0.52 

Ireland 

+  0.05 

Turkey 

-0.25 

Greece 

-0.37 

Russia 

-0.93 

Poland 

-1.53 

Italy 

-1.26 

=*=0.1368  (10.0) 

±0.1071  (14.0) 

±0.1731  (11.8) 

±0.1215  (11.4) 

±0.1813  (11.4) 

±0.1418  (11.3) 

±0.1355  (10.5) 

±0.1231  (8.4) 

±0.1264  (5.6) 

±0.1789  (2.9)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1269  (0.4)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1398  (1.8)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1272  (2.9)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1139  (8.2) 

±0.1393  (10.9) 

±0.1104  (11.4) 


1ST 


Table  No.  23 

Differences  between  TURKEY  and  other  countries 

Number  of  cases  423 
Average  score  12.02 


Standard  deviation  2.75 

England 

+2.85  ±0.1241  (22.9) 

United  States 

+  1.75  ±0.0904  (19.3) 

Canada 

+  1.64  ±0.1071  (15.3) 

Germany 

+  1.86  ±0.1297  (14.3) 

Holland 

+2.30  ±0.1632  (14.1) 

Denmark 

+  1.67  ±0.1228  (13.6) 

Scotland 

+  2.32  ±0.1720  (13.5) 

Sweden 

+  1.28  ±0.1089  (11.8) 

Norway 

+  0.96  ±0.1126  (8.5) 

Belgium 

+  0.77  ±0.1695  (4.5) 

Ireland 

+0.30  ±0.1132(2.7)  Difference  unreliable. 

Austria 

+0.25  ±0.1398  (1.8)  Difference  unreliable. 

Greece 

—  0.12  ±0.1135(1.0)  Difference  unreliable. 

Russia 

-0.68  ±0.0984  (6.9) 

Poland 

-1.28  ±0.1269  (10.1) 

Italy 

-1.01  ±0.0944  (10.7) 

138 


Table  No.  24 


Differences  between  GREECE  and  other  countries 


Number  of  cases  572 
Average  score  11.90 
Standard  deviation  2.45 


England 

+2.97 

United  States 

+  1.87 

Canada 

+  1.76 

Germany 

+  1.98 

Denmark 

+  1.79 

Holland 

+2.42 

Sweden 

+  1.40 

Scotland 

+2.44 

Norway 

+  1.08 

Belgium 

+  0.89 

Ireland 

+  0.42 

Austria 

+  0.37 

Turkey 

+  0.12 

Russia 

-0.56 

Poland 

-1.16 

Italy 

-0.89 

±0.1097  (27.0) 

±0.0693  (26.9) 

±0.0900  (19.6) 

±0.1159  (17.1) 

±0.1081  (16.5) 

±0.1525  (15.9) 

±0.0921  (15.2) 

±0.1619  (15.0) 

±0.0965  (11.2) 

±0.1592  (5.6) 

±0.0972  (4.3) 

±0.1272  (2.9)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.1135  (1.0)  Difference  unreliable. 
±0.0795  (7.1) 

±0.1129  (10.3) 

±0.0744  (11.9) 


139 


Table  No.  25 


Differences  between  RUSSIA  and  other  countries 

Number  of  cases  2340 
Average  score  11.34 
Standard  deviation  2.83 


United  States 

+  2.43 

England 

+3.53 

Canada 

+2.32 

Sweden 

+  1.96 

Denmark 

+  2.35 

Germany 

+  2.54 

Holland 

+2.98 

Norway 

+  1.64 

Scotland 

+  3.00 

Ireland 

+  0.98 

Belgium 

+  1.45 

Austria 

+  0.93 

Greece 

+  0.56 

Turkey 

+  0.68 

Poland 

-0.60 

Italy 

-0.33 

±0.0400  (60.7) 
±0.0940  (37.5) 
±0.0700  (33.1) 
±0.0727  (26.9) 
±0.0921  (25.5) 
±0.1012  (25.1) 
±0.1417  (21.0) 
±0.0795  (20.6) 
±0.1517  (19.8) 
±0.0791  (12.4) 
±0.1488  (9.8) 
±0.1139  (8.2) 
±0.0795  (7.1) 
±0.0984  (6.9) 
±0.0977  (6.1) 
±0.0483  (6.9) 


140 


Table  No.  26 

Differences  between  ITALY  and  other  countries 

Number  of  eases  4009 
Average  score  11.01 


Standard  deviation  2.60 

LTnited  States 

+2.76  ±0.0285  (96.8) 

England 

+3.86  ±0.0897  (43.0) 

Canada 

+2.65  ±0.0641  (41.3) 

Sweden 

+  2.29  ±0.0671  (34.1) 

Denmark 

+2.68  ±0.0877  (30.5) 

Germany 

+  2.87  ±0.0972  (29.5) 

Norway 

+  1.97  ±0.0729  (27.0) 

Holland 

+3.31  ±0.1388  (23.9) 

Scotland 

+3.33  ±0.1491  (22.3) 

Ireland 

+  1.31  ±0.0739  (17.7) 

Belgium 

+  1.78  ±0.1462  (12.2) 

Austria 

+  1.26  ±0.1104  (11.4) 

Turkey  - 

+  1.01  ±0.0944  (10.7) 

Greece 

+  0.89  ±0.0744  (11.9) 

Russia  ‘ 

+  0.33  ±0.0483  (6.9) 

Poland 

—  0.27  ±0.0936  (2.9)  Difference  unreliable. 

141 


Table  No.  27 


Differences  between  POLAND  and  other  countries 


Number  of  cases  382 
Average  score  10.74 
Standard  deviation  2.59 


United  States 

+3.03 

England 

+4.13 

Canada 

+  2.92 

Germany 

+  3.14 

Denmark 

+  2.95 

Sweden 

+2.56 

Holland 

+  3.58 

Scotland 

+3.60 

Norway 

+2.24 

Ireland 

+  1.58 

Belgium 

+  2.05 

Austria 

+  1.53 

Greece 

+  1.16 

Turkey 

+  1.28 

Russia 

+  0.60 

Italy 

+  0.27 

±0.0896  (33.8) 

±0.1236  (33.4) 

±0.1064  (27.4) 

±0.1291  (24.3) 

±0.1221  (24.1) 

±0.1082  (23.6) 

±0.1628  (21.9) 

±0.1716  (20.9) 

±0.1119  (20.1) 

±0.1126  (14.0) 

±0.1691  (12.1) 

±0.1393  (10.9) 

±0.1129  (10.3) 

±0.1269  (10.1) 

±0.0977  (6.1) 

±  0.0936  (2.9)  Difference  unreliable. 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


143 


Tables  11  to  27  give  the  most  accurate  interpretation  of 
the  differences  found  between  the  various  nativity  groups 
that  it  is  possible  to  derive  from  the  army  data.  It  is  desir¬ 
able,  however,  to  attempt  to  estimate  the  meaning  of  these 
differences  in  terms  of  standards  which  have  some  popular 
significance.  For  this  reason,  the  combined  scale  distribu¬ 
tions  in  this  study  have  been  converted  into  estimates  of 

«/ 

the  per  cent,  of  A  and  B  men  in  each  group,  and  the  per 
cent,  of  D,  D—  and  E  men. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  army  letter  ratings 
are  arbitrary  ratings  and  have  no  real  significance  aside 
from  the  tests  from  which  they  were  derived.  The  army 
rating  “A”  represents  a  certain  score  on  the  tests  that 
should  have  been  reached  by  4%  or  5%  of  the  whole  army 
group.  In  the  same  way  the  rating  “B”  was  fixed  so  as  to 
include  the  next  8%  or  10%.  It  is  of  course  absurd  to  deplore 
the  fact  that  only  4%  or  5%  of  the  army  were  A  men,  when 
A  was  fixed  so  that  only  4%  or  5%  could  receive  that  rating. 
At  the  other  end  of  the  scale,  the  ratings  D  and  D—  were 
fixed  so  that  they  would  include  approximately  20%  of  the 
total  group,  and  the  E  rating  was  reserved  for  those  recom¬ 
mended  for  development  battalions,  special  service  organi¬ 
zations,  rejection  or  discharge.  The  estimates  made  at  the 
time  the  examinations  were  being  standardized  proved  to 
be  about  right.  The  A  and  B  groups  which  should  have  in¬ 
cluded  12%  to  15%  of  the  draft  actually  included  12%,  and 
the  D,  D—  and  E  groups,  which  should  have  included  20% 
to  25%,  actually  included  24%. 

Table  28  gives  the  per  cent,  of  cases  in  each  nativity 
group  who  would  be  classified  A  or  B  according  to  the 
criterion  of  the  upper  12%  of  the  total  unselected  white 
draft.  Table  29  gives  the  per  cent.  wrho  would  be  classified 
as  D,  D  —  and  E  according  to  the  criterion  of  24%  of  the 
unselected  group.  The  relations  between  the  various  nativ- 


144 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


ity  groups  given  in  Tables  28  and  29  are  shown  graphically 
in  Figure  37. 

Another  criterion  that  probably  represents  intellectual 
ability  of  a  high  order  is  the  per  cent,  at  or  above  the 
average  of  the  white  officers.  The  classification  of  the 
nativity  groups  according  to  this  criterion  is  given  in  Table 
30.  At  the  other  end  of  the  scale,  a  criterion  of  inferiority 
that  has  a  certain  social  significance  is  the  per  cent,  at  or 
below  the  average  of  the  negro  draft.  Table  31  shows  the 
nativity  groups  classified  according  to  this  criterion.  The 
results  given  in  Tables  30  and  31  are  shown  graphically  in 
Figures  38  and  39. 

It  is  not  possible  to  determine  accurately  the  percentage 

Table  No.  28 

Per  cent,  of  each  nativity  group  in  the  A  and  B  groups 


England .  19.0 

Native  Born  White  Draft .  13.2 

Scotland .  13.1 

Holland .  12.4 

Total  White  Draft .  12.0 

Canada .  11.1 

Germany .  10.1 

Denmark .  7.0 

Sweden .  5.9 

Norway .  5.3 

Foreign  Born  White  Draft .  4.6 

Ireland . 4.3 

Austria .  4.1 

Turkey .  4.0 

Russia .  3.3 

Belgium .  2.9 

Greece .  2.2 

Italy .  1.5 

Colored  Draft .  1.4 

Poland . 1.1 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


145 


of  feeble-mindedness  in  each  group.  The  selection  by  the 
draft  boards  probably  excluded  all  idiots  and  many  im¬ 
beciles.  The  diagnosis  of  the  border-line  cases  of  feeble¬ 
mindedness  is,  in  the  last  analysis,  a  social  diagnosis,  and 
can  not  be  based  on  intelligence  tests  alone.  It  has  been 
found,  however,  that  a  “mental  age”  of  eight  indicates  an 
order  of  intelligence  so  low  that  the  individual  has  diffi- 
culty  in  adjusting  himself  to  his  environment  adequately. 
Table  32  gives  a  conservative  estimate  of  the  per  cent,  in 
each  nativity  group  belowT  an  approximate  “mental  age”  of 
eight.  The  percentages  in  Table  32  are  shown  graphically 
in  Figure  40. 

Table  No.  29 

Per  cent,  of  each  nativity  group  in  the  D,  D  — ,  and  E 

groups 


England .  8.8 

Holland . 12.0 

Scotland .  13.5 

Germany .  16.2 

Denmark .  17.0 

Native  Born  White  Draft . 21.0 

Canada .  21.6 

Sweden .  23.2 

Total  White  Draft . ,  .  24.1 

Norway .  29.0 

Belgium .  29.3 

Ireland .  38.1 

Austria . 38.4 

Turkey .  43.6 

Greece .  44.6 

Foreign  Born  White  Draft .  44.6 

Russia .  55.7 

Italy .  60.5 

Poland .  63.8 

Colored  Draft .  67.5 


ENGLAND 

////////777/7777777/77///77/7///77/77777//77///7777/m 

HOLLAND 


V/7//7/7/7A//777777Z7A7777//A7777/77777/777/77 


SCOTLAND 

777/777777^7777/777^777/7/7/7777777777777777/ 

GERMANY 


77/77777777777//777777777777/7777//77/7777///7///A 

DENMARK 


NATIVE  BORN  WHITE  DRAFT 

77/Z7/7/7/77/////7///////7///7//7////7///77A 

CANADA 


7/////////7777/////7///////////7////7//7///7/7777. 

SWEDEN 


7///z7/////y///////////7//z/77/zzzA 

TOTAL  WHITE  DRAFT 


777777/77////////////////////777/7//77777777_ 

NORWAY 

//////////////////////////////////////////////A 

BELGIUM 

m/////77///////77777777///////////////7  "~i 

IRELAND 


7777777777777///////7//777/7//m^. 

AUSTRIA 

W777/77////////////////////777777 


TURKEY 

r////////////////77/77772Z^77Zm 


GREECE 

17//7/Z/ZZZZ////7//7/7/777/7 


FOREIGN  BORN  WHITE  DRAFT 

/////////////////////////m. 


/////////////////////////AX 

/7Z777/77777777777\ 


POLAND 


NEGRO  DRAFT 


'///y////7m/£Z7 


D,D—  &  E 

//////////z  c,ce?c+ 

90  100 

A.6B 


146 


Figure  37.  The  relative  standing  of  the  various  nativity  groups  in 
the  proportions  of  A  and  B  men,  and  D,  D — ,  and  E  men.  In 
interpreting  this  chart,  it  should  be  remembered  that  A  and  B, 
and  D,  D — ,  and  E  do  not  represent  absolute  intelligence  stand¬ 
ards,  but  rather  standards  arbitrarily  fixed.  In  this  case  the 
standards  were  fixed  by  the  93,955  individuals  making  up  the 
sample  of  the  total  white  draft,  A  and  B  representing  scores 
obtained  by  the  upper  12%  of  this  group,  while  D,  D — ,  and  E 
represent  scores  obtained  by  the  lower  24%.  The  comparison  is 
relative  and  not  altogether  reliable,  for  it  fails  to  take  into  con¬ 
sideration  the  average,  the  number  of  cases,  and  the  variability. 
Tables  28,  29,  and  this  chart  have  been  presented  for  the 
convenience  of  the  reader,  and  to  supplant  Table  217,  and  Fig¬ 
ure  19,  on  pages  697  and  698  of  Memoir  XV,  which  are  not 
based  on  combined  scale  results. 


147 


Table  No.  30 


Per  cent,  of  each  nativity  group  at  or  above  the  average 

of  the  white  officers 


England .  6.2 

Scotland .  4.8 

Native  Born  White  Draft .  4.6 

Holland .  4.3 

Total  White  Draft .  4.1 

Canada .  3.5 

Germanv .  3.4 

Austria .  1.5 

Sweden .  1.4 

Foreign  Born  White  Draft .  1.3 

Ireland .  1.2 

Denmark .  1.1 

Norway .  1.0 

Turkey .  0.8 

Russia .  0.8 

Belgium .  0.3 

Italy .  0.3 

Greece .  0.3 

Poland .  0.1 


Figure  38.  The  proportion  of  each  nativity  group  obtaining  intel¬ 
ligence  scores  at  or  above  the  average  of  the  white  officers 
(18.84).  Reference  to  Figure  31  will  show  that  this  criterion 
indicates  a  relatively  high  order  of  intelligence.  In  comparing 
this  Figure  with  Figures  37  and  39,  it  should  be  noted  that  each 
of  the  three  figures  has  been  drawn  to  a  different  scale.  Our  in¬ 
terpretation  of  these  figures  must  be  made  with  caution,  for  we 
are  comparing  extremes  of  the  distribution  curves  without  ref¬ 
erence  to  the  position  of  the  average,  the  variability  about  the 
average,  or  the  number  of  cases  in  the  various  groups. 


148 


ENGLAND 

SCOTLAND 

NATIVE  BORN  WHITE  DRAFT 
HOLLAND 

TOTAL  WHITE  DRAFT 

CANADA 

GERMANY 

AUSTRIA 

SWEDEN 

FOREIGN  BORN  WHITE  DRAFT 

IRELAND 

DENMARK 

NORWAY 

TURKEY 

RUSSIA 

BELGIUM 

ITALY 

GREECE 

POLAND 


0°/o  1%  2%  3  7o  *%  5%  6% 


7%  . 


0%  1%  2%  3%  4%  5%  6%'  7% 


149 


Table  No.  31 


Per  cent,  of  each  nativity  group  at  or  below  the  average 

of  the  negro  draft 


England .  4.3 

Holland .  4.9 

Germany .  6.5 

Scotland .  6.8 

Denmark .  7.5 

Native  Born  White  Draft .  7.6 

Sweden .  11.5 

Canada .  11.6 

Total  White  Draft .  13.7 

Norway .  15.2 

Belgium .  16.0 

Ireland .  22.8 

Austria .  24.5 

Greece .  27.1 

Turkey .  28.2 

Foreign  Born  White  Draft .  29.5 

Russia . 39.0 

Italy .  42.3 

Poland .  46.0 


Figure  39.  The  proportion  of  each  nativity  group  at  or  below  the 
average  of  the  negro  draft.  Reference  to  Figure  31  will  show 
that  this  criterion  indicates  a  rather  low  order  of  intelligence. 
If  50%  of  any  nativity  group  were  at  or  below  the  negro  aver- 
a ge,  the  two  distributions  would  be  approximately  identical. 
Russia  shows  39%  below  the  negro  average,  Italy  42.3%,  and 
Poland  46%. 


150 


20% 


30 7o  40%  50% 


ENGLAND 

HOLLAND 

GERMANY 

SCOTLAND 

DENMARK 

NATIVE  BORN  WHITE  DRAFT 

SWEDEN 

CANADA 

TOTAL  WHITE  DRAFT 

NORWAY 

BELGIUM 

IRELAND 

AUSTRIA 

GREECE 

TURKEY 

FOREIGN  BORN  WHITE  DRAFT 

RUSSIA 

ITALY 

POLAND 


07c  10% 


0  %  10%  20%  30%  40%  50% 

>  —  ,  -  ...  ,  ,  ..  —  — - - - -  .  - i 


151 


Table  No.  32 


Per  cent,  of  each  nativity  group  below  the  approximate 


“mental  age”  of  eight 

Holland .  0.1 

Germany .  0.2 

Denmark .  0.2 

England .  0.3 

Scotland .  0.4 

Sweden .  0.4 

Norway .  0.8 

Canada .  0.9 

Native  Born  White  Draft .  1.1 

Total  White  Draft . , .  1.4 

Belgium .  1.6 

Ireland .  1.9 

Greece .  2.3 

Austria .  2.7 

Turkey .  3.1 

Foreign  Born  White  Draft .  3.2 

Russia .  5.0 

Italy . 5.2 

Poland .  6.8 

Colored  Draft .  10.0 


Figure  40.  Proportion  of  each  nativity  group  testing  below  the  ap¬ 
proximate  “mental  age”  of  eight.  This  criterion  indicates  intelli¬ 
gence  of  a  very  low  order.  These  individuals  are  probably  capa¬ 
ble  of  adjusting  themselves  only  to  the  simplest  form  of  environ¬ 
ment,  occupation  and  conditions  of  living.  Few  of  them  would  be 
able  to  manage  their  affairs  with  ordinary  prudence.  Many  of 
them  should  be  in  custodial  institutions. 


152 


HOLLAND 


GERMANY 
DENMARK 
ENGLAND 
SCOTLAND 
SWEDEN 
NORWAY 
CANADA 
NATIVE  BORN  WHITE  DRAFT 
TOTAL  WHITE  DRAFT 
BELGIUM 
IRELAND 
GREECE 
AUSTRIA 

TURKEY 

FOREIGN  BORN  WHITE  DRAFT 

RUSSIA 

ITALY 

POLAND 
NEGRO  DRAFT 


I 

■ 

a 


153 


SECTION  VII 


RELIABILITY  OF  THE  RESULTS 


The  results  of  the  army  psychological  examination  fig¬ 
ured  by  means  of  the  combined  scale  give  us  the  best  avail¬ 
able  measures  of  the  intelligence  of  the  various  groups  ex¬ 
amined.  Do  these  results  apply  to  the  army  as  a  whole? 
The  logic  underlying  the  answer  to  this  question  is  the  same 
as  that  underlying  the  judgment  of  the  whole  by  one  of 
its  parts.  The  tea  taster  samples  the  tea  to  be  graded.  He 
does  not  need  to  brew  a  whole  bale  of  tea  to  find  its  worth. 
In  this  experiment  we  have  sampled  the  entire  army  by 
taking  15,543  white  officers,  93,955  white  recruits  and 
23,596  negro  recruits.  Our  group  of  white  recruits  was  sub¬ 
divided  into  81,465  native  born  and  12,492  foreign  born. 

No  one  would  hesitate  to  accept  the  results  of  the 
81,465  native  born  as  typical  of  the  army  as  a  whole.  If  we 
continued  sampling  indefinitely,  our  results  would  increase 
in  reliability  only  as  the  square  root  of  the  number  of 
cases,  and  81,465  cases  constitute  a  sample  that  is  a  luxury 
from  the  point  of  view  of  size.  In  the  same  way,  no  one 
could  seriously  question  the  reliability  of  our  sampling  of 
15,543  officers,  23,596  negroes  and  12,492  foreign  born  as 
typical  of  the  remainder  of  the  officers,  negroes,  and  foreign 
born  whites  in  the  army. 

The  results  from  the  81,465  cases  in  the  native  born 
white  draft  may  be  taken  as  typical  of  white  males  between 
the  ages  of  21  and  31  and  above  the  idiot  or  imbecile  grade. 
In  making  our  comparisons  between  other  groups,  we 
know  that  the  Selective  Service  Act  called  all  men  to  the 
colors  impartially.  The  same  regulations  drew  the  Italians, 
the  negroes,  the  native  whites,  the  Polish,  and  all  other 


154 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


155 


groups  into  the  army.  The  method  of  sampling  all  the 
psychological  records  again  drew  these  cases  impartially. 
If  our  theory  of  sampling  is  correct,  then  we  may  accept 
the  army  results  as  very  approximately  typical  of  the  male 
population  as  a  whole. 

For  instance,  our  figures  in  Table  3  show  characteristic 
differences  in  the  average  score  on  the  army  tests  of  foreign 
born  individuals  in  this  country  from  0  to  5  yrs.,  and  those 
in  this  country  from  6  to  10  yrs.,  etc.  The  same  factors 
which  determined  the  sampling  of  the  3,576  cases  in  this 
country  0  to  5  yrs.  determined  the  sampling  of  the  4,287 
cases  in  this  country  6  to  10  yrs.  As  long  as  the  principles 
of  sampling  are  the  same,  we  may  take  our  small  sample  as 
typical  of  the  group  as  a  whole. 

The  results  of  the  psychological  tests  of  foreign  born 
individuals  classified  according  to  length  of  residence, 
taken  as  typical  of  our  foreign  born  population  as  a  whole, 
indicate  definitely  that  the  average  intelligence  of  succeed¬ 
ing  waves  of  immigration  has  become  progressively  lower. 
Immigrants  coming  to  this  country  between  1913  and  1917 
have  a  lower  average  intelligence  than  those  coming  to 
this  country  in  the  years  1908  to  1912.  The  group  coming 
to  this  country  in  the  years  1903  to  1907  had  a  higher 
average  intelligence  that  the  1908  to  1912  group,  and  a 
lower  average  intelligence  than  immigrants  coming  to  this 
country  in  the  years  1898  to  1902. 

In  drawing  these  conclusions  we  are  taking  the  groups 
examined  in  the  army  as  typical  of  the  corresponding 
groups  in  the  entire  population.  During  the  years  1913  to 
1917,  about  3  1/3  millons  of  immigrants  came  to  this 
country.  We  are  actually  using  3,576  cases  or  about  0.1% 
as  typical  of  the  whole  group.  It  may  very  properly  be 
objected  that  this  is  too  small  a  sample  on  which  to  base 
definite  conclusions.  We  must  therefore  state  our  conclu- 


156 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


sions  less  dogmatically,  and  with  the  proviso  that  if  the 
groups  examined  in  the  army  are  typical  of  the  immigra¬ 
tion  coming  to  this  country  in  the  same  periods,  then  we 
know  that  our  more  recent  periods  of  immigration  give 
us  an  average  intelligence  which  becomes  progressively 
lower  and  lower.  This  tentative  conclusion  will  be  modified 
by  any  evidence  which  tends  to  support  the  hypothesis 
made. 

The  same  kind  of  argument  from  the  sample  to  the  group 
holds  in  our  interpretation  of  the  differences  in  the  average 
intelligence  scores  of  groups  in  our  army  born  in  different 
countries.  For  instance,  in  the  period  under  consideration 
from  1887  to  1917  there  have  been  about  3  7/8  millons  of 
Italians,  and  over  3  million  Russians  who  have  come  to 
this  country.  We  are  actually  using  4,009  Italians  and 
2,340  Russians  as  typical  samples  of  these  groups.  Of 
course  no  one  would  maintain  that  these  4,009  Italians  are 
typical  of  the  population  of  Italy.  There  are  so  many  vari¬ 
able  factors  determining  immigration  that  the  immigrants 
can  not  themselves  be  taken  as  representative  of  the 
country  as  a  whole.  The  question  at  issue  is  that  of  accept¬ 
ing  4,009  Italians  as  typical  of  the  3  7/8  millions  who  have 
come  to  this  country  since  1887.  The  chief  claim  to  reli¬ 
ability  of  our  sample  from  each  country  is  the  fact  that  the 
sample  was  drawn  at  random  from  the  army  group,  and 
the  fact  that  the  Selective  Service  Act  drew  the  men  from 
each  country  impartially. 


SECTION  VIII 


THE  RACE  HYPOTHESIS 

The  results  of  the  examination  of  the  nativity  groups 
suggest  immediately  that  the  race  factor  may  underlie  the 
large  differences  found.  If  we  do  find  the  common  factor  of 
race  underlying  the  differences  between  the  various  nativ¬ 
ity  groups,  it  will  give  our  results  much  greater  reliability, 
for  the  chance  factors  of  sampling  particularly  inferior  or 
superior  groups  in  the  small  nativity  samples  would  dis¬ 
appear  in  combination.  Our  figures  are  based  on  country 
of  birth  and  no  statistics  are  available  for  race.  The  race 
hypothesis  must  therefore  be  examined  indirectly. 

Writers  on  immigration,  for  the  most  part,  divide  the 
countries  of  Europe  into  two  groups  (1)  Northern  and 
Western,  and  (2)  Eastern  and  Southern,  and  usually  as¬ 
sume  that  the  immigration  from  Northern  and  Western 
Europe  has  been  mostly  Nordic.  This  traditional  method 
is  open  to  two  very  serious  objections.  In  the  first  place, 
the  classification  fails  to  differentiate  the  Alpine  and  Medi¬ 
terranean  race  groups.  In  the  second  place  the  assumption 
that  the  immigration  from  Northern  and  Western  Europe 
was  mostly  of  a  pure  Nordic  type  is  unwarranted,  for  this 
classification  includes  Germany  and  Ireland,  two  countries 
that  have  contributed  very  largely  to  our  immigration  in 
the  past.  The  following  figures  show  the  size  of  the  Irish 
and  German  immigration: 


157 


158 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


DECADE 

TOTAL 

IMMIGRATION 

PER  CENT. 

FROM 

IRELAND 

PER  CENT. 

FROM 

GERMANY 

PER  CENT. 

FROM 

IRELAND  AND 

GERMANY 

1820-1830 

143,439 

35% 

5% 

40% 

1831-1840 

599,125 

35% 

25% 

60% 

1841-1850 

1,171,251 

46% 

25% 

71% 

1851-1860 

2,598,214 

35% 

37% 

72% 

1861-1870 

2,314,824 

19% 

34% 

53% 

1871-1880 

2,812,191 

15% 

26% 

41% 

1881-1890 

5,246,613 

12% 

28% 

40% 

1891-1900 

3,844,420 

11% 

14% 

25% 

1901-1910 

8,795,386 

4% 

4% 

8% 

1911-1920 

5,735,811 

2}4% 

2^% 

5% 

These  figures  show  clearly  the  fallacy  of  assuming  that  the 
immigration  from  Northern  and  Western  Europe  has  been 
predominately  Nordic,  for  Ireland  is  largely  Mediterranean 
and  Germany  largely  Alpine. 

If  we  wish  to  obtain  even  approximate  estimates  of  the 
contributions  of  each  of  the  three  European  races  to  our 
importations,  it  is  necessary  to  abandon  the  Northern  and 
Western,  and  Eastern  and  Southern  classification  and  try 
another  method.  If  it  were  possible  to  make  even  approxi¬ 
mate  estimates  of  the  percentage  of  Nordic,  Alpine  and 
Mediterranean  blood  in  each  of  the  European  nations  send¬ 
ing  immigrants  to  this  country,  such  approximate  estimates 
would  be  very  much  superior  to  the  present  method. 

In  collaboration  with  students  of  this  subject,  I  have 
constructed  Table  33  which  contains  tentative  estimates  of 
the  present  blood  constitution  of  the  countries  sending  im¬ 
migrants  to  this  country.  This  table  is,  of  course,  only  an 
approximation  to  the  truth,  and  many  persons  will  dis¬ 
agree  with  the  estimates.  For  this  reason,  I  am  re-publishing 
in  Table  34,  Table  68,  page  100,  of  the  Statistical  Abstract 
for  the  United  States  for  1920,  which  shows  the  arrivals  of 
alien  passengers  and  immigrants  by  nationalities  and  by 


Table  No.  33 


Tentative  estimates  of  the  proportion  of  Nordic,  Alpine 
and  Mediterranean  blood  in  each  of  the  European  coun¬ 
tries. 


PER  CENT.  PER  CENT. 


PER  CENT. 


NORDIC 

ALPINE 

MEDITERR 

Austria-Hungary . 

10 

90 

0 

Belgium . 

60 

40 

0 

Denmark . 

85 

15 

0 

France . 

30 

55 

15 

Germany . 

40 

60 

0 

Greece . 

0 

15 

85 

Italy . 

5 

25 

70 

Netherlands . 

85 

15 

0 

Norway . 

90 

10 

0 

Sweden . 

100 

0 

0 

Russia  (including  Poland) . 

5 

95 

0 

Poland . 

10 

90 

0 

Spain . 

10 

5 

85 

Portugal . 

5 

0 

95 

Roumania . 

0 

100 

0 

Switzerland . 

35 

65 

0 

Turkev  (unclassified) . 

0 

20 

80 

Turkey  (in  Europe)  (including  Serbia, 

Montenegro  and  Bulgaria) . 

0 

60 

40 

Turkey  (in  Asia) . 

0 

10 

90 

England . 

80 

0 

20 

Ireland . 

30 

0 

70 

Scotland . 

85 

0 

15 

Wales . 

40 

0 

60 

British  North  America . 

60 

40 

0 

159 


Table  No.  34 

No.  68.— ARRIVALS  OF  ALIEN  PASSENGERS  AND  IMMIGRANTS,  1820  TO  1920:  By  Nationali¬ 
ties  and  by  Decades. 

[Sources:  Records  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  prior  to  1896;  subsequently,  reports  of  the  Commissioner  General 
of  Immigration,  Department  of  Labor.  The  figures  represent  “alien  passengers”  from  Oct.  1,  1820,  to  Dec.  31, 
1867;  “immigrants”  from  Jan.  1,  1868,  to  date. 


COUNTRY  OF  LAST  PERMANENT 
RESIDENCE 

oct.  1,  1820, 
to  sept.  30,  1830 

oct.  1,  1830, 
to  dec.  31,  1840 

JAN.  1,  1841, 

TO  DEC.  31,  1850 

JAN.  1,  1851, 

TO  DEC.  31,  1860. 

Austria-Hungary . 

Belgium . 

27 

22 

5,074 

539 

77,262 

434,626 

4,738 

3,749 

76,358 

951,667 

Denmark . 

169 

1,063 

45,575 

152,454 

France . 

8,497 

6,761 

Germany . 

Greece1 . 

Italy . 

408 

2,253 

1,412 

1,870 

8,251 

9,231 

10,789 

Netherlands . 

1,078 

Norway . 

Sweden . 

}  91 

1,201 

13,903 

20,931 

Russia,  including  Russian  Poland2. . . . 
Spain3 . 

91 

) 

646 

656 

1,621 

Portugal4 . 

\  2,622 

2,954 

2,759 

10,353 

Rumania1 . 

Switzerland . 

3,226 

4,821 

4,644 

25,011 

Turkey  in  Europe5 . 

United  Kingdom: 

England . 

22,167 

2,912 

50,724 

73,143 

2,667 

207,381 

263,332 

3,712 

780,719 

385,643 

38,331 

914,119 

Scotland . 

Ireland . 

Wales6 . 

Total  United  Kingdom . 

75,803 

283,191 

1,047,763 

1,338,093 

Europe,  not  specified . 

43 

96 

155 

116 

Total  Europe . 

98,816 

495,688 

1,597,502 

2,452,657 

British  North  America7 . 

2,277 

4,817 

105 

13,624 

6,599 

44 

41,723 

3,271 

368 

59,309 

3,078 

449 

Mexico7 . 

Central  America . 

West  Indies:  Bermuda  and  Miquelon. 
South  America . 

3,834 

531 

12,301 

856 

13,528 

3,579 

10,660 

1,224 

Total  America7 . 

11,564 

33,424 

62,469 

74,720 

Islands  of  the  Atlantic . 

352 

103 

337 

3,090 

China . 

2 

8 

35 

41,397 

India8 . 

Japan8 . 

Turkey  in  Asia8 . 

Other  Asia . 

8 

40 

47 

61 

Total  Asia . 

10 

48 

82 

41,458 

Total  Oceania . 

2 

9 

29 

158 

Total  Africa . 

16 

52 

55 

210 

All  other  countries . 

32,679 

69,801 

52,777 

25,921 

Grand  total . 

143,439 

599,125 

1,713,251 

2,598,214 

included  in  “Europe,  not  specified,”  prior  to  1891-1900.  includes  also  Finland  after  1872. 
includes  Canary  and  Balearic  Islands  after  1900. 

4Figures  include  the  Azores  and  Cape  Verde  Islands  after  1879,  they  being  classed  with  Portugal  so  far  as  that 
country  is  separately  shown. 


160 


JAN.  1,  1861, 
to  june  30,  1870 

TEAKS 

ENDED  JUNE  30 - 

1871  to  1880 

1881  TO  1890 

1891  TO  1900 

1901  to  1910 

1911  to  1920 

7,800 

72,969 

353,719 

597,047 

2,145,266 

896,342 

6,734 

7,221 

20.177 

20,062 

41,635 

33,746 

17,094 

31,771 

88,132 

52,670 

65,285 

41,983 

35,984 

72,206 

50,464 

36,006 

73,379 

61,897 

787,468 

718,182 

1,452,970 

543,922 

341,498 

143,945 

15,996 

167,519 

184,201 

11,728 

55,759 

307,309 

655,694 

2,045,877 

1,109,524 

9,102 

16,541 

53,701 

31,816 

48,262 

43,718 

f  95,265 

190,505 

66,395 

109,298 

211,245 

568,362 

\  230,679 

249,534 

95,074 

4,536 

52,254 

265,088 

593,703 

1,597,306 

921,957 

(  6,723 

27,935 

68,611 

8,493 

9,893 

6,535 

\  23,010 

69,149 

89,732 

14,559 

53,008 

13,311 

23,286 

28,293 

81,988 

33,149 

34,922 

23,091 

2,562 

118,202 

77,098 

568,128 

460,479 

657,488 

271,094 

388,017 

249,944 

38,768 

87,564 

149,869 

60,053 

120,469 

78,601 

435,778 

436,871 

655,482 

403,496 

339,065 

145,937 

11,186 

17,464 

13,107 

1,042,674 

984,914 

1,462,839 

745,829 

865,015 

487,589 

210 

656 

10,318 

4,370 

1,719 

18,350 

2,064,407 

2,261,904 

4,721,602 

3,703,061 

8,136,016 

4,376,564 

153,871 

383,269 

392,802 

2,631 

179,226 

742,185 

2,191 

5,362 

1,913 

746 

49,642 

219,004 

96 

210 

462 

1,183 

8,112 

17,159 

9,043 

13,957 

29,042 

35,040 

107,548 

123,424 

1,396 

928 

2,304 

3,059 

17,280 

41,899 

166,597 

403,726 

426,523 

42,659 

361,808 

1,143,671 

3,446 

10,056 

15,798 

64,301 

123,201 

61,711 

23,166 

20,605 

21,278 

26 

4,713 

2,082 

26,855 

129,797 

83*837 

8,398 

77,393 

79*389 

308 

622 

6,669 

28^370 

11,059 

5,973 

64,609 

123,823 

68,380 

86,815 

243,567 

192,559 

221 

10,913 

12,574 

8,793 

12,973 

13,427 

312 

229 

437 

1,343 

7,368 

8,443 

15,232 

1,540 

1,299 

1,749 

33,654 

1,147 

2,314,824 

2,812,191 

5,246,613 

3,844,420 

8,795,386 

5,735,811 

includes  Serbia,  Bulgaria,  and  Montenegro  prior  to  1920;  included  in  “Europe,  not  specified,”  prior  to  1891- 
1900;  also,  after  1919,  Czechoslovakia,  Poland,  and  the  Kingdom  of  the  Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes. 

6Not  separately  stated  prior  to  1891-1900. 

immigrants  from  British  North  America  and  Mexico  were  not  reported  from  1886  to  1895,  inclusive. 

8Not  separately  enumerated  prior  to  1899. 


161 


162 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


decades  from  1820  to  1920.  My  own  Tables  9  and  10  give 
the  distribution  of  the  intelligence  scores  on  the  combined 
scale  for  the  nativity  groups  we  are  studying.  Anybody 
who  disagrees  with  the  estimates  given  in  Table  33  may 
take  these  tables  and  split  them  according  to  any  other 
estimates  he  wishes  to  make.  However,  minor  changes  in 
the  proportions  given  in  Table  33  would  make  very  little  dif¬ 
ference  in  the  final  results.  The  figures  which  follow  are 
merely  estimates  based  on  Table  33.  I  am  not  claiming 
that  these  figures  are  absolutely  reliable,  but  merely  that 
they  represent  very  much  closer  approximations  to  the 
truth  than  would  be  obtained  from  the  Northern  and  West¬ 
ern,  and  Southern  and  Eastern  classification. 

To  obtain  an  estimate  of  the  proportion  of  Nordic,  Al¬ 
pine,  and  Mediterranean  blood  in  our  immigration  since 
1840,  the  immigration  figures  by  countries,  given  in  Table 
34,  have  been  cut  according  to  the  proportions  given  in 
Table  33  and  re-combined  into  percentage  estimates  which 
are  given  in  Table  35.  These  estimates  show  in  general  an 
immigration  prior  to  1890  which  ran  40%  or  50%  Nordic 
blood. 

Since  1890,  the  proportion  of  Nordic  blood  has  dropped 
to  20%  or  25%,  the  Alpine  stock  now  constituting  about 
50%  of  the  total  and  the  Mediterranean  20%  or  25%. 

The  proportions  given  in  Table  35  are  shown  graphically 
in  Figure  41.  The  percentage  estimates,  given  in  Figure  35 
and  shown  graphically  in  Figure  41,  should  be  considered 
in  connection  with  the  total  volume  of  immigration  for 
each  decade  given  in  Table  34  and  shown  graphically  in 
Figure  42. 


Table  No.  35 


Estimate  of  the  amount  of  Nordic,  Alpine  and  Mediter¬ 
ranean  blood  coming  to  this  country  from  Europe  in  each 
decade  since  1840. 


DECADE 

TOTAL 

IMMIGRATION 

PER  CENT. 

NORDIC 

BLOOD 

PER  CENT. 

ALPINE 

BLOOD 

PER  CENT 

MEDITERRANEAN 

BLOOD 

PER  CENT. 
OTHERS  AND 

UNCLASSIFIED 

1841-1850 

1,713,251 

40.5 

19.0 

36.2 

4.3 

1851-1860 

2,598,214 

42.3 

25.5 

28.9 

3.3 

1861-1870 

2,314,824 

50.6 

26.0 

19.2 

4.2 

1871-1880 

2,812,191 

48.8 

28.5 

16.7 

6.0 

1881-1890 

5,246,613 

46.1 

35.2 

16.0 

2.7 

1891-1900 

3,844,420 

30.2 

43.8 

22.5 

3.5 

1901-1910 

8,795,386 

19.8 

51.3 

24.3 

4.6 

1911-1920 

5,735,811 

22.6 

44.0 

23.7 

9.7 

100 


1841-1850  1851-1800  1801-1870  1871-1880  1881-1890  1891-1900  1901-1910  1910-1920 


G3  o  £ 
O 

rG 

c c 


G 

G 


o 

o 


03 


<v 


03 

03 

03 


be 

G 


03 

c 

03 

03 

03 

Sh 

Q 

oT 


03 

03 

-L-> 

G 

G 


i 

03 

GS 

— i 

G 


5^S 

s  ■»  b 


G 

«+-< 

'"g 

G 

G3 

G 

s-< 

be 


03 

be 

Jh 

G 

03 

22 


03 


Sh 

c 

03 

03 

G 

03 

03 

-l-> 

G 

-u 

C/2 


G 

22 

2G 

03 

G 

W 

G3 

O 

o 


2? 

f-<  Q 
°  ^ 

>o  o 

cN  »o 

o 


03  03 

22  G 

+->  g3 


o 
CO 

«  o 

r— H  >r  ^  r\ 
J*3  v\)  IQ 

H  -  "  03 

-  O 

G  O 


03 

G 

G3 

03 


c n 

•  ph 

>* 

f-i 

03 

> 

o 

CJ 

03 

Jh 


03 

•  pH 

G 

P 

03 


03 

G 

•  pH 

< 

r3 

G 

G 


G 

03 

i> 

•  pH 

be 


G3 

G 


u 

o 

o 

2? 


03  G 

qj  s-h 

be 


G 

03 

u 


G  -£ 

G 

^  § 
cr 

03 
03 

22 

G 

03 


a 

G 


G 

G 


G 

O 


be 

•  fm 

£ 

G 


G 

03 

hc 

PH 

G 

s- 

?H 

03 

£3 

03 


03 


03 


«+-i 

03  w 

•  pH 

03  rS 

&  O 
G  fc 

«-M 


03  3 

b  g 

co  ph 

C5s  «3 


£ 

o 

Sh 

«-W 

G 

£ 

G 


o 

t-l 

o 

03 

G 

G 

G 

03 

J-i 

?H 

03 

P  "H 

•  pH 

-M 

G 

03 

^5 

03 

03 

4-a 

G 

03 

rG 

22 

G 

03 

G 

o 

03 

03 

w 

•  pH 
c  , 

«+-i 

J-2) 

pH 

o 

G 

rr> 

03 
03 
03 
03 

o 

g3 
G 
03 

-?  >> 
JS  03 

-T  f-i 


03 


03 


G 

?h 

be 


«\ 

-H 

«3 


be 


03 

g 


^5 

?H 

c 

^  £ 
be  33 


G 

iO 

G 

O 

'-M 

G 

Jh 

be 


03 

Sh 


03 


•s  a 

rn  O 
' — i  Sh 
_03  t+4 

J:  be 

G 

•  pH 

a 

o 


© 


G  O  03 


33  -W 

-G  G 


03 

r~* 

•  H 

Gh 

< 


03  Stt 
03  a 


03 


G 

03 

03 


r — i 

b£  G 


9.000,000 


© 


a  S3 

•rH  © 


ci 

u 

tc 


B 


S3 

* 

o 

CO 

CO 


CO  tM 

o 

i—< 

a  a) 

S3  g 

<3  g 

<o  '"o 
Wj  > 
c3 

-M  ■— I 

S3  « 

<u  -g 

S  ° 

GJ  o 

H-> 

<0  _ 


S3  <» 
33  co 
<u 
S3 

o  _r 
£  § 
2  S 

be”1 


.s  ° 

GO 
CLi  00 

,-C  i— i 

H  <u 
a; 

>  o 
o  « 

,  n  “ 

^  gj 

>>■5 


r-  4^  ^  o 
H  -r  $0,0 
,  ?  s  o 

g  S3  be  o' 

_2  O  ^*0 

8  8  |  g 

^  g  si 

^  »H  mLj 

^  O  frt 

J=  °  C  g 

g  T3  ^ 
.2  rd  s:  « 
-£  «  °3  g 

b  Sh  « 

.££.33  CO  © 

Sco  ®0 
c  00 
S  O  S3  ^ 

•pH  GJ  C3  Q 

««  D  J 

O  ^  GO  O 

«  2  »  00 

5  3  ,2  - 

3  2^^ 
®  ° 
K*  «N  ^  <u 

S3  "2 


S3 

I— I  co^ 

.  « 

3*%  . 

u  £") 

4_)  OJ 

e  £ 

o 

W  S 
co  cu 

IB  OT 
>» 
3  ^ 

4J 

oj  h- i 

i 

CJ  S3 
c3 

co 

S3  ci 

O  .pH 

•  ^  CO 

23  « 

•  *— <  £3 

S 

Ov' 

do 


*H 

c3 

bJD 


33 

Iffl 


^  2 

05  ‘fn 

^H  H-> 

CO 

S3  <1 


o  o 

Ci  1—1 
1-1  Ci 

T™ 1 1 

S3 

Oi  o 

Oi  44> 
£ 

4-J  t—l 

<u  o 

22  Ci 


O 


•  ^ 

o* 

Tfi  <u 

u 

*>  S3 


S3  ci 

GO 

33  3 


o 

o 

so 


<u 


CO 

S3 

O 


*3  bJj  o  co 

S  .C  ^3 

^j>— H  CO  -M 


CO 


S3 
c3 

r-C  03 

4->  H4. 


168 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


In  order  to  obtain  an  estimate  of  the  intelligence  of  the 
three  European  races  in  this  country,  the  distributions  of 
the  intelligence  scores  on  the  combined  scale  given  in 
Table  9  were  cut  according  to  the  proportions  given  in 
Table  33,  and  re-combined  into  Nordic,  Alpine,  and  Medi¬ 
terranean  groups.  The  final  distributions  are,  of  course, 
neither  purely  Nordic,  Alpine,  nor  Mediterranean,  but  the 
sample  of  individuals  we  have  thus  selected  as  Nordic  is 
undoubtedly  more  typical  of  the  Nordic  race  type  than 
it  is  of  the  Alpine  and  Mediterranean  types.  In  the  same 
way,  the  Alpine  and  Mediterranean  groups  are  more  typi¬ 
cal  of  each  of  these  race  types  than  they  are  of  either  of  the 
other  two.  With  thus  much  of  apology  for  the  method,  I 
wTill,  in  the  following  pages,  simply  for  brevity  of  expres¬ 
sion,  call  these  groups  Nordic,  Alpine,  and  Mediterranean. 
The  reader  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  distributions  are 
only  approximate  samplings. 

The  actual  distributions  on  the  combined  scale  of  the 
three  race  groups  so  selected  are  given  in  Table  36,  togeth¬ 
er  with  the  proportions  in  each  thousand.  The  distribution 
curves  of  the  three  groups  are  shown  in  Figure  43,  in  which 
the  horizontal  direction  represents  scores  on  the  com¬ 
bined  scale,  and  the  vertical  direction  proportions  in  each 
thousand  making  each  intelligence  score. 

The  differences  found  are  very  marked.  The  difference 
between  the  Nordic  and  Alpine  group  is  1.61  =*=0.042,  a 
difference  which  is  38.3  times  the  probable  error  of  the 
difference.  The  difference  between  the  Nordic  and  Medi¬ 
terranean  group  is  1.85  ±0.042,  a  difference  which  is  44  times 
the  probable  error  of  the  difference.  The  Alpine  and  Medi¬ 
terranean  groups  are,  on  the  other  hand,  very  much  closer 
together,  the  difference  being  0.24  ±  0.04,  a  difference  which 
is  6  times  the  probable  error  of  the  difference. 

The  easiest  and  most  obvious  objection  that  can  be  made 


Table  No.  36 


Analysis  of  the  foreign  bom  white  draft  by  races.  Distri¬ 
butions  of  the  intelligence  scores  of  the  Nordic,  Alpine 
and  Mediterranean  groups. 


COMBINED 

ACTUAL  DISTRIBUTION 

PROPORTION  IN 

EACH 

SCALE 

THOSUAND 

INTERVALS 

NORDIC 

ALPINE 

MEDITER- 

NORDIC 

ALPINE 

MEDITER 

RANEAN 

RANEAN 

24 . 0-24 . 9 

23.0-23.9 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

22.0-22.9 

3 

1 

1 

1 

.... 

.... 

21.0-21.9 

8 

5 

2 

2 

1 

.... 

20.0-20.9 

19 

11 

5 

5 

2 

2 

19.0-19.9 

37 

22 

11 

11 

5 

3 

IS. 0-18. 9 

71 

47 

26 

21 

10 

6 

17.0-17.9 

135 

90 

55 

39 

19 

13 

16.0-16.9 

238 

155 

103 

09 

32 

24 

15.0-15.9 

357 

240 

180 

103 

51 

43 

14.0-14.9 

469 

372 

296 

136 

78 

71 

13.0-13.9 

566 

544 

468 

164 

114 

111 

12.0-12.9 

528 

650 

591 

153 

136 

141 

11.0-11.9 

371 

628 

590 

107 

132 

140 

10.0-10.9 

260 

595 

569 

75 

125 

136 

9.0-  9.9 

184 

546 

523 

53 

115 

125 

8.0-  8.9 

112 

403 

376 

32 

85 

90 

7.0-  7.9 

59 

248 

223 

17 

52 

53 

6.0-  6.9 

26 

124 

108 

8 

26 

26 

5.0-  5.9 

9 

52 

47 

3 

11 

11 

4.0-  4.9 

3 

19 

16 

1 

4 

4 

3.0-  3.9 

1 

6 

5 

.... 

2 

1 

2.0-  2.9 

•  •  •  • 

2 

1 

.... 

1.0-  1.9 

.... 

•  •  •  • 

.... 

.... 

.... 

No.  of  cases. 

3456 

4766 

4196 

Average .... 

13.28 

11.67 

11.43 

S.D . 

2.70 

2.87 

2.70 

169 


ic/ure  43.  The  distributions  of  the  intelligence  scores  of  the  Nordic,  Mediterranean 
and  Alpine  groups.  This  chart  indicates  clearly  the  superiority  of  the  Nordic  group. 
73.9%  of  the  Nordic  group  are  above  the  average  Alpine,  and  76.5%  of  the  Nordic 
group  are  above  the  average  Mediterranean.  The  Mediterranean  and  Alpine  groups 
are  very  similar,  52.3%  of  the  Alpines  exceeding  the  average  Mediterranean. 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


171 


to  these  findings  is  that  the  superiority  of  the  Nordic  group 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  it  contains  so  many  English  speaking 
persons,  and  that  lack  of  facility  in  the  use  of  English  is  a 
handicap  to  the  non-English  speaking  foreign  born  in  the 
army  tests.  We  have  previously  examined  this  hypothesis 
in  connection  with  the  argument  establishing  the  fact  that 
each  succeeding  five  year  period  since  1902  shows  a  gradual 
deterioration  in  the  intelligence  of  the  immigrants  examined 
in  the  army,  and  have  definitely  shown  that  the  language 
factor  does  not  distort  the  scores  of  the  years  of  residence 
groups.  There  is,  however,  a  considerable  amount  of  wish¬ 
ful  thinking  on  the  subject  of  race,  and  it  is  well  to  make 
assurance  doubly  sure  by  testing  the  hypothesis  that  the 
superiority  of  the  Nordic  group  is  caused  by  the  presence 
in  the  group  of  English  speaking  populations. 

It  is  possible  to  split  the  Nordic  distribution  in  such  a 
way  that  one  group  will  contain  representatives  from 
countries  which  are  predominantly  English  speaking  (Eng¬ 
land,  Scotland,  Ireland  and  Canada),  while  the  other  group 
will  contain  representatives  from  countries  which  are  pre¬ 
dominantly  non-English  speaking  (Holland,  Denmark, 
Germany,  Sweden,  Norway,  Belgium,  Austria,  Russia, 
Italy  and  Poland).  This  we  have  done,  and  the  results  are 
given  in  Table  37,  the  two  distributions  being  shown  in 
Figure  44. 

The  distributions  of  the  English  speaking  Nordic  group 
and  the  non-English  speaking  Nordic  group  show  a  differ¬ 
ence  of  0.87^0.065,  a  difference  which  is  13.4  times  the 
probable  error  of  the  difference.  There  are,  of  course,  cogent 
historical  and  sociological  reasons  accounting  for  the  in¬ 
feriority  of  the  non-English  speaking  Nordic  group.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  one  washes  to  deny,  in  the  teeth  of  the  facts, 
the  superiority  of  the  Nordic  race  on  the  ground  that  the 
language  factor  mysteriously  aids  this  group  when  tested, 


Table  No.  37 


Analysis  of  the  total  Nordic  sample  into  an  English  speak- 


ing  Nordic 

group 

and  a  non-English  speaking  Nordic 

group. 

COMBINED 

ACTUAL  DISTRIBUTION 

PROPORTION  IN  EACH 

SCALE 

THOUSAND 

INTERVALS 

ENGLISH 

NON-ENGLISH 

ENGLISH 

NON-ENGLISH 

SPEAKING 

SPEAKING 

SPEAKING 

SPEAKING 

NORDIC 

NORDIC 

NORDIC 

NORDIC 

24.0-24.9 

23.0-23.9 

i 

•  •  •  • 

.... 

22.0-22.9 

2 

.... 

2 

.... 

21.0-21.9 

7 

2 

6 

1 

20.0-20.9 

12 

6 

10 

3 

19.0-19.9 

21 

16 

17 

7 

18.0-18.9 

39 

32 

32 

14 

17.0-17.9 

67 

67 

54 

30 

1G. 0-16. 9 

108 

131 

87 

59 

15.0-15.9 

143 

214 

116 

96 

14.0-14.9 

176 

293 

143 

132 

13.0-13.9 

201 

365 

163 

164 

12.0-12.9 

172 

356 

139 

160 

11.0-11.9 

109 

262 

88 

118 

10.0-10.9 

70 

189 

57 

85 

9.0-  9.9 

49 

135 

40 

61 

8.0-  8.9 

31 

82 

25 

37 

7.0-  7.9 

16 

43 

13 

19 

G.0-  6.9 

7 

19 

6 

9 

5.0-  5.9 

2 

7 

2 

3 

4.0-  4.9 

1 

2 

.... 

2 

3.0-  3.9 

.... 

1 

•  •  •  • 

•  •  •  • 

2.0-  2.9 

.... 

.  .  .  , 

•  .  .  . 

•  •  •  • 

1.0-  1.9 

.... 

.... 

.  .  .  . 

•  •  •  • 

No.  of  cases.  . . 

1234 

2222 

Average . 

13.84 

12.97 

S.  D . 

2.79 

2.60 

200 


u 

M 

Q 

03 

C 

£ 

G 

£ 

►H 

f*3 

2 

CD 


CD 

HH 

HH 

c 

£ 

K 

i 

<3 

O 

£ 


I 

I 


O 

Q 

PS 

G 

£ 

O 

fc 

HH 

< 

« 

ca 


c/) 

HH 

J 

G 

£ 

PS 


I 

I 


°  X 

•  r-H  n 

T3  o 

?H 

o 


52; 

be 

o 

•i-H 

Od 

c3 

D 

Oh 

CD 


pG  ’£ 

CD 

p— I  «5 

w  o 


d 

pO 

4-1 

i+H 

o 

CD 

D 

Sh 

o 

a 

CD 


0) 

Jh 
D 

rO 

o 

* 
o 

pG 

CD 

D 

o 

o 

d 

?H 

D 

•  rH 

T3 

D 
pO 

cd  L_i 
d  t-i 


OJ 

?H 

D 

£ 

CD 

C 

o 


D  1 

be  £ 

c3 

?H 

D 
> 

Cj 


d 

pO 

441 


d 

d 

O 

D 

£h 

D 

5« 


bed 

G 


rd 

d 

<v 

d 

D 


D 

pG 


CD 

c3 


D 

G 

•  r-H 
& 


T3 

G 

o3 

03 

c3 

d 

G 

ctf 

J-H 

Jh 

d 

4-> 


pO 

H 


CD 


%  ° 
•  C3  *r-( 

gn 

O  O  O 

* 


d 

g-srs 

O^S 

b£  ^  ^ 

r  1 


be 

a 


«  _ 

a  TJ 

H  fH 

<u  o 

.5P& 


be 

G 

>H< 

c3 

D 

Oh 

CD 


4-4 

o 

G> 


G 

C3 

Oh 


D 


d 


5+4 

o 

CD 

o 

O 

•  f-H 

-M 

o 

p-O 


CD 


(D 


g;  o 

% 

C  D 

?H  -pH 

be  03 

PH 

D  O 


b/0  g 


be 

C 


O 

be  K 

C  ^pO 

"-H  PJ  CD  -"3  Kjr 

P^H  .-4  — !  HQ  /-K 

cs  ns 

D  ?H 

o  o  r1 

CD  ^  W 

4  (  O 

^  c3  i-O 

■M  4-4 

0  v-i 
D 

o 

0  .5  GO 

D  SS'^P 


CO 

• 

Tjd 

g 


»o 


.  -id 

fee  C3 

C  D 

*M  Oh 
r3  cd 
O  u 

2^  1-0  >4 

Oh  CD  p 

Ec 

pO 

CD  o  Po 


T3 

O 

c3 


CD 


t4H 

TpH 

D  O 
^  o 

S  ^H 

be 


0 

c3 

pO 


,nb 

<  D 


c 

be. 


o 

0 

D 


PH  CD 


c3 


CD 


o 


D 


D 

D 

tH 


P~ 

o 

— H 

CO 

CO 


be 


174 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


he  may  cut  out  of  the  Nordic  distribution  the  English 
speaking  Nordics,  and  still  find  a  marked  superiority  of  the 
non-English  speaking  Nordics  over  the  Alpine  and  Medi¬ 
terranean  groups.  The  difference  between  the  non-English 
speaking  Nordic  group  and  the  Alpine  group  is  1.30  =*=  0.047, 
a  difference  which  is  27.6  times  the  probable  error  of  the 
difference.  The  difference  between  the  non-English  speak¬ 
ing  Nordic  group  and  the  Mediterranean  group  is  1.54  =*= 
0.047,  a  difference  which  is  31.3  times  the  probable  error 
of  the  difference.  The  distributions  are  shown  graphically 
in  Figure  45.  Discarding  the  English  speaking  Nordics 
entirely,  we  still  find  tremendous  differences  between  the 
non-English  speaking  Nordic  group  and  the  Alpine  and 
Mediterranean  groups,  a  fact  which  clearly  indicates  that 
the  underlying  cause  of  the  nativity  differences  we  have 
shown  is  race,  and  not  language. 

It  may  be  convenient  for  some  to  interpret  the  differ¬ 
ences  found  between  the  representatives  of  the  three  Euro¬ 
pean  races  in  this  country  in  terms  of  the  standards  having 
popular  significance  which  were  used  in  Section  VI.  The  cri¬ 
teria  of  the  per  cent.  A  and  B,  and  the  per  cent.  D,  D  — 
and  E  give  the  following  results : 

PER  CENT.  PER  CENT. 

A  AND  B  D,D—  AND  E 


English  speaking  Nordic .  12.3  19.9 

Total  Nordic .  8.1  25.8 

Non-English  speaking  Nordic .  5.7  29.1 

Alpine .  3.8  50.3 

Mediterranean .  2.5  53.6 


The  criteria  of  the  per  cent,  at  or  above  the  average 
white  officer,  and  at  or  below  the  average  of  the  negro 
draft  give  the  following  results: 


200 


bC 

P 


co 

0U 

cu 

P 

au 

uh 

au 

& 


M 
P 
0U 

A 

CO 

•  I— I 

UP  ^ 
.2  au 


cu 

rP 

4-> 

d 

0) 

au 

cu 

K 

CU 


bC| 

a 

W 

i 

p 

o 

p 

cu 

uP 

-u 

«-M 

o 

co 

au 

u 

o 

a 

CO 

CU 

cu 

P 

au 

be 


O  u  d 

P 

d  S  <P 

au  o  __, 

.5  £;  ^ 

_p  4J 
i — I  CO 
P  -_j  “4— ' 

if  d  •£ 
o  gd 

© 

UP  "  ^ 


cu 

p 


p 

P 

0) 

P 

P 

?H 

?-H 

0U 


a 


co 
& 

3  -■— 

O  "g 
H  P 
be  o 

& 


Ph.2 

§  § 
j-i  P 

be  o 


p 

3 

0U 

p 
P 
t- 1 
Uh 
0U 
-M 

•  rH 

-73 

au 


P 

P 
0U 

P 

be  p 
P  & 
"m  au 

"P 

CO  *i—i 

au  d 
Ph  cu 
CO  UH 


«H-H 

O 

K*^ 

H-> 

•cH 

?-( 

o 


<u 

Sh 

•  rH 

H-3 

P 

CU 


d 

P 

3 


4J 


CU 

ccj 

*4H 


O 

P 

rd 

p 

P 


u 

v  Si 
Ph  be 


CU 

p 

— .  #rH 
pH  Ph 

° 


cu 


UP 

co 


d 

§  H 


au 

H-J 

P 

•  P— < 

CU 

rP 

4-> 

«-W 

o 

co 

P 

O 

•l-H 

H-> 

P 

P 

•p-H 

-M 

Cfc 

•  rH 

n3 


(V 

G 

•  pH 

Ph 

r— H 

<  _ 

^  *0 
p  ° 

•  rH 

rP 


<U  ^ 
~  be 
be  £ 
p  « 

> 

cu 


au  d 

rP  £ 

H-H  O 
CU  £ 

°  bo 

p 


<u 

rP 

-H 


cu 

cu 

P 

au 

bo 

•  pH 

r*H 

au 

-u> 

P 

•  pH 

O 

H-> 

au 

P 

d 


P 

o 

P 

au 

rP 


d 

au 

au 

cu 

X 

au 


Pi 

P 

au 

Ph 

co 

UP 

co 


Ph 

P 

o 

*H 

be 


d 
P 
P 

©  Ph 

H  g 


f 

a^co 
o  g6 

*>  i> 

d 
P 
P 


Sh 

o 

-c-> 

CU 

P 

Uh 


P 

O 

a 

cu 

rP 


»o 

au 

§,£ 
•  (VI 


be 

cu 

•p-H 

d 

f-H 

o 


H-> 

P 

cc3 

CU 

op 

•  rH 

P 

be 

•  rH 

co 

K*~J 

U 

au 

> 

au 

U< 

p 


H 

au 

rP 


CU  _, 

bo^ 

P  ^ 
P 

be 
p 

ccS 


u 

2  au 
u 

p  p 
co 

co 
CU 

cu 
p 
au 

Ch 

-<  au 
be  au 

o  cu 

^  % 

be  ^ 
P  au 

rP 

H~H 


p  P4 

&  g 

£  Ph 


au 

P 


cu 
UP 

4J 

Ph  4J 
■— J  P 

<3  up 

au 

be  © 

03  ^ 
uh  au 

au  pp 
>■  au 

P  rP 


co  co 

•  rH 

d  up 

.  co 

a - 

a 


be 
p 
<u  H 

—  i 


p 

o 

P 


Ph 
P 

O  _ 

*-h 

be +3 


au 


H-0 

P 

UP 

4-H 

be 

p 

•  rH 
> 

O 

Uh 

Ph 

•N 

m 
Ph 
P  - 
O 
U 

be 


UP 

CO 

•  rH 
r— * 

be 

p 

W 

4h 

o 

au 

co 

P 

au 


176 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


PER  CENT.  PER  CENT. 
AT  OR  ABOVE  AT  OR  BELOW 
AVERAGE  AVERAGE  OF 

WHITE  THE  NEGRO 

OFFICER  DRAFT 


English  speaking  Nordic .  4.0  10.9 

Total  Nordic .  2.3  14.5 

Non-English  speaking  Nordic .  1.3  16.5 

Alpine .  1.0  34.5 

Mediterranean .  0.5  36.5 


The  criterion  of  the  per  cent,  below  an  approximate 
“mental  age”  of  eight  gives  the  following  results: 

PER  CENT. 

BELOW 

“mental 
age”  8 


English  speaking  Nordic .  0.8 

Total  Nordic .  1.1 

Non-English  speaking  Nordic .  1.3 

Alpine .  4.2 

Mediterranean .  4.2 


SECTION  IX 


RE-EXAMINATION  OF  PREVIOUS  CONCLUSIONS 
IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  THE  RACE  HYPOTHESIS 

It  is  now  necessary  to  retrace  our  steps  for  a  moment  to 
examine  some  of  our  previous  conclusions  in  the  light  of 
this  new  hypothesis.  The  hypothesis  that  the  differences 
between  the  nativity  groups  found  in  the  army  tests  are 
due  to  the  race  factor  may  be  used  to  re-test  our  previous 
conclusions  that  each  succeeding  five  year  period  of  immi¬ 
gration  since  1902  has  given  us  an  increasingly  inferior 
selection  of  individuals  (Section  IV).  The  periods  which  we 
sample  by  means  of  the  army  data,  and  the  average  score 
on  the  combined  scale  of  each  sample  are  as  follows: 


PERIOD 

NUMBER  OF 

CASES 

COMBINED 

SCALE 

AVERAGE 

1887-1897 

764 

13.82 

1898-1902 

771 

13.55 

1903-1907 

1897 

12.47 

1908-1912 

4287 

11.74 

1913-1917 

3576 

11.41 

Table  35,  which  gives  our  estimates  of  the  per  cent,  of 
Nordic,  Alpine  and  Mediterranean  blood  coming  to  this 
country,  shows  that  the  big  change  in  immigration  came 
between  the  decades  1881-1890  and  1891-1900,  the  per¬ 
centage  of  Nordic  blood  which  formerly  ran  from  40%  to 
50%  having  dropped  to  30%  in  the  decade  1891-1900,  and 
to  approximately  20%  or  25%  in  the  two  subsequent  dec¬ 
ades.  On  the  other  hand,  the  big  drop  in  the  intelligence 
of  immigrants  arriving  came  after  1902.  The  change  in 


177 


178 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


character  of  the  immigration  would  account  for  part  of  the 
decline  in  the  average  intelligence  of  succeeding  periods  of 
immigration,  but  not  for  all  of  it.  The  decline  in  intelligence 
is  due  to  two  factors,  the  change  in  the  races  migrating  to 
this  country,  and  to  the  additional  factor  of  the  sending 
of  lower  and  lower  representatives  of  each  race. 

The  only  tendency  which  would  relieve  this  deplorable 
situation  would  be  a  current  of  emigration  strong  enough 
to  counteract  the  current  of  immigration.  Table  6  preced¬ 
ing  shows  the  ratio  between  emigration  and  immigration 
for  each  of  the  nativity  groups  involved  in  this  study,  and 
we  find  in  general  between  1908  and  1917  a  return  current 
approximately  one  third  of  the  arriving  current. 

Unfortunately,  no  emigration  statistics  are  available 
prior  to  1908,  and  the  figures  after  1912  are  distorted  by 
the  Balkan  and  European  wars.  The  only  sample  that  we 
can  take  that  is  comparatively  free  from  outside  influences 
is  the  sample  1908-1912.  Taking  the  figures  of  arrivals  and 
departures  for  this  period,  and  dividing  them  into  Nordic, 
Alpine  and  Mediterranean  groups  according  to  the  method 
previously  outlined,  we  obtain  the  following  percentage 
estimates : 


Per  cent,  of  Nordic 

ALIEN 

IMMIGRANTS 

ADMITTED 

ALIEN 

EMIGRANTS 

DEPARTED 

NET 

IMMIGRATION 

blood . 

Per  cent,  of  Alpine 

21.2 

16.0 

23.9 

blood . 

Per  cent,  of  Mediter- 

50.4 

50.6 

50.2 

ranean  blood . 

Per  cent,  others  and 

23.2 

28.6 

20.5 

unclassified . 

5.2 

4.8 

5.4 

AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


179 


The  sample  from  this  five  year  period  shows  a  slight 
change  (approximately  3%)  in  favor  of  the  Nordic  type 
and  against  the  Mediterranean  type,  the  Alpine  immigra¬ 
tion  holding  its  own.  There  is  therefore  no  relief  from  our 
receding  curve  of  intelligence  from  emigration,  if  this  five 
year  period  be  taken  as  typical  of  the  outward  alien  pas¬ 
senger  movement  in  other  years. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  army  authors  tentatively 
offered  the  hypothesis  that  the  more  intelligent  immigrants 
remained  in  this  country,  while  the  more  stupid  ones  went 
home,  as  a  possible  method  of  accounting  for  the  increase 
of  intelligence  scores  with  increasing  years  of  residence. 
The  gain  of  3%  in  favor  of  the  Nordic  immigration  would 
produce  a  very  slight  tendency  in  this  direction,  but  not 
enough  to  account  for  the  actual  increase  of  intelligence 
scores  found  with  increasing  years  of  residence,  11.41 
(1913-1917)  to  13.82  (1887-1897). 

It  will  also  be  remembered  that  the  army  writers  offered 

« / 

the  hypothesis  of  the  better  adaptation  of  the  more  thor¬ 
oughly  Americanized  group  to  the  situation  of  the  examin¬ 
ation  to  account  for  the  increases  shown.  The  factor  of  the 
adaptation  to  the  situation  of  the  examination  cannot  be 
dissected  out  of  the  total  scores  of  the  test.  If  such  a  factor 
were  present,  it  would  fall  equally  heavily  on  Nordic,  Alpine 
and  Mediterranean  alike,  unless  the  change  in  the  character 
of  immigration  were  so  complete  that  the  groups  sampled 
at  the  two  extremes  of  the  residence  groups  (1887-1897 
and  1913-1917)  represented  different  race  groups. 

But  the  difference  between  these  two  years  of  residence 
groups  (2.41  ±0.0735)  is  so  marked  that  it  would  be  neces¬ 
sary  to  assume  (if  our  Nordic  group  were  the  more  thor¬ 
oughly  Americanized)  that  the  1887-1897  group  was  com¬ 
posed  entirely  of  English  speaking  Nordics  or  their  equiva¬ 
lent  in  intelligence,  and  that  our  1913-1917  group  was 


180 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


composed  entirely  of  Mediterraneans  or  their  equivalent 
in  intelligence,  assumptions  quite  unwarranted  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  in  the  two  years  of  residence  groups  1887- 
1897  and  1898-1902  we  sampled  1545  individuals,  while 
our  Nordic  group  includes  3456  cases,  and  also  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  Nordic  immigration  has  dropped,  in  the 
period  observed,  at  the  outside  from  45%  to  20%.  We  may 
therefore  conclude  that  the  intangible  factor  of  4 ‘the  more 
thoroughly  Americanized  group”  can  not  be  used  to  ex¬ 
plain  the  high  test  record  of  the  Nordic  group. 

There  is  only  one  other  possible  escape  from  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  our  test  results  indicate  a  genuine  intellectual 
superiority  of  the  Nordic  group  over  the  Alpine  and  Medi¬ 
terranean  groups,  and  that  is  the  assumption  that  the 
situation  of  the  examination  involved  a  situation  that  was 
“typically  Nordic.”  This  assumption  of  course  lands  us  in 
a  perfect  circle  of  reasoning.  It  would  leave  us  with  the 
conclusion  that  there  was  something  mysteriously  Nordic 
about  alpha  and  beta  that  favored  this  race.  We  should 
have  to  assume  that  the  Nordic,  no  matter  where  he  may 
be,  in  the  Canadian  Northwest,  in  the  Highlands  of  Scot¬ 
land,  or  on  the  shores  of  the  Baltic,  is  always  ready  for  an 
intelligence  test.  Perhaps  it  would  be  easier  to  say  that  the 
Nordic  is  intelligent.  A  situation  “typically  Nordic”  could 
not  be  used,  however,  to  account  for  the  slight  but  real  dif¬ 
ference  between  the  English  speaking  Nordic  and  the  non- 
English  speaking  Nordic  groups.  It  is  therefore  best  to 
abandon  the  attempt  to  account  for  the  differences  by  the 
more  or  less  feeble  hypotheses  that  would  make  these  dif¬ 
ferences  an  artifact  of  the  method  of  examining,  and  recog¬ 
nize  the  fact  that  we  are  dealing  with  real  differences  in  the 
intelligence  of  immigrants  coming  to  our  shores. 

We  have  previously  noted  the  fact  that  the  foreign  born 
in  the  army  sampled  as  representative  of  the  immigrants 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


181 


coming  to  this  country  between  1887  and  1897  were  statis¬ 
tically  identical  with  the  native  born  white  draft.  The 
change  in  the  character  of  our  immigration  came  between 
1890  and  1900.  The  real  drop  in  the  curve  of  intelligence, 
however,  started  about  1900.  We,  therefore, cannot  account 
for  the  drop  in  the  intelligence  of  the  immigrants  sampled 
as  representatives  of  those  coming  to  this  country  in  each 
five  year  period  since  1902  by  the  race  hypothesis  entirely. 


SECTION  X 


COMPARISON  OF  OUR  RESULTS  WITH  THE 
CONCLUSIONS  OF  OTHER  WRITERS 
ON  THE  SUBJECT 

In  a  very  definite  way,  the  results  which  we  obtain  by 
interpreting  the  army  data  by  means  of  the  race  hypothesis 
support  Mr.  Madison  Grant’s1  thesis  of  the  superiority  of 
the  Nordic  type:  “The  Nordics  are,  all  over  the  world,  a 
race  of  soldiers,  sailors,  adventurers,  and  explorers,  but 
above  all,  of  rulers,  organizers,  and  aristocrats  in  sharp 
contrast  to  the  essentially  peasant  and  democratic  char¬ 
acter  of  the  Alpines.  The  Nordic  race  is  domineering,  in¬ 
dividualistic,  self-reliant,  and  jealous  of  their  personal 
freedom  both  in  political  and  religious  systems,  and  as  a 
result  they  are  usually  Protestants.  Chivalry  and  knight¬ 
hood  and  their  still  surviving  but  greatly  impaired  counter¬ 
parts  are  peculiarly  Nordic  traits,  and  feudalism,  class 
distinctions,  and  race  pride  among  Europeans  are  traceable 
for  the  most  part  to  the  north.”  (p.228.)  “The  pure  Nordic 
peoples  are  characterized  by  a  greater  stability  and  steadi¬ 
ness  than  are  mixed  peoples  such  as  the  Irish,  the  ancient 
Gauls,  and  the  Athenians,  among  all  of  whom  the  lack  of 
these  qualities  was  balanced  by  a  correspondingly  greater 
versatility.”  (pp.  228-229.) 

Our  results  based  on  the  army  data  also  support  Mr. 
Grant’s  estimates  of  the  Alpine  race:  “The  Alpine  race  is 
always  and  everywhere  a  race  of  peasants,  an  agricultural 
and  never  a  maritime  race.  In  fact  they  only  extend  to 
salt  water  at  the  head  of  the  Adriatic  and,  like  all  purely 


iMadison  Grant.  The  Passing  of  the  Great  Race.  New  York,  1922,  p.  476. 


182 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


183 


agricultural  communities  throughout  Europe,  tend  toward 
democracy,  although  they  are  submissive  to  authority  both 
political  and  religious,  being  usually  Roman  Catholics  in 
western  Europe.  This  race  is  essentially  of  the  soil,  and 
in  towns  the  type  is  mediocre  and  bourgeois.”  (p.  227.) 

Our  results  also  support  de  Lapouge1  in  his  contention 
that  the  Nordic  type  is  superior  to  the  Alpine.  He  says  con¬ 
cerning  the  Alpine:  “II  est  le  parfait  esclave,  le  serf  ideal, 
le  sujet  modele,  et  dans  les  republiques  comme  la  notre, 
le  citoyen  le  mieux  vu,  ear  il  tolere  tous  les  abus.”  (p.  233.) 
“Les  etats  brachycephales,  France,  Autriche,  Turquie,  sans 
parler  de  la  Pologne  qui  n’est  plus,  sont  loin  d’offrir  la 
vitalite  des  Etats -Unis  ou  de  l’Angleterre.  Cependant 
la  mediocrite  nieme  du  brachycephale  est  une  force.  Ce 
neutre  echappe  a  toutes  les  causes  de  destruction.  Noiraud, 
courtaud,  lourdaud,  le  brachycephale  regne  aujour  d’hui 
del’Atlantique  a  la  Mer  Noire.  Comme  la  mauvaise  monnaie 
chasse  Y autre,  sa  race  a  supplante  la  race  meilleure.  II  est 
inerte,  il  est  mediocre,  mais  se  multiplie.  Sa  patience  est 
au-dessus  des  epreuves;  il  est  sujet  sournis,  soldat  passif, 
fonctionnaire  obeissant.  Il  ne  porte  pas  ombrage,  il  ne  se 
revolte  point.”  (p.  481.) 

It  must,  however,  be  frankly  admitted  that  our  results, 
which  show  the  Mediterranean  race  inferior  to  the  Alpine, 
are  in  contradiction  with  those  of  most  writers  who  have 
inferred  the  intellectual  level  of  a  race  from  its  historical 
achievements.  Mr.  Grant,  for  instance,  says:  “The  mental 
characteristics  of  the  Mediterranean  race  are  well  known, 
and  this  race,  while  inferior  in  bodily  stamina  to  both  the 
Nordic  and  the  Alpine,  is  probably  the  superior  of  both, 
certainly  of  the  Alpines,  in  intellectual  attainments.  In  the 
field  of  art  its  superiority  to  both  the  other  European  races 


Georges  Yacher  de  Lapouge.  L’Aryen,  son  role  social.  Paris,  1899,  p.  563. 


184 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


is  unquestioned,  although  in  literature  and  in  scientific  re¬ 
search  and  discovery  the  Nordics  far  excel  it.”  (P.  229). 1 

The  apparent  contradiction  between  our  results  and  the 
estimates  of  other  observers  has  a  very  obvious  solution, 
viz.,  that  those  who  draw  their  conclusions  from  historical 
data  are  studying  the  Mediterranean  race  as  it  was  at  the 
period  of  its  greatest  development,  when  it  produced  the 
civilizations  of  Egypt,  Mesopotamia,  Phoenicia,  and  Crete, 
and,  with  a  Nordic  predominance,  gave  the  civilizations 
of  Greece  and  Rome,  while  our  data  sample  this  race  group 
as  it  is  at  the  present  time. 

The  sample  we  have  taken  as  representative  of  the  Medi¬ 
terranean  race,  as  it  is  now  constituted,  is  drawn  from  im¬ 
migrants  in  our  army  born,  for  the  most  part,  in  Greece, 
Ireland,  Italy,  and  Turkey,  and  inasmuch  as  the  number 
from  Italy  (4009)  is  so  large,  our  Mediterranean  sample 
is  heavily  weighted  (approximately  2/3)  by  this  nativity 
group. 

In  regard  to  the  Irish,  Mr.  Madison  Grant  says:  “In 
spite  of  the  fact  that  Paleoliths  have  not  been  found  there, 
some  indications  of  Paleolithic  man  appear  in  Ireland,  both 
as  single  characters  and  as  individuals.  Being,  like  Brittany 
situated  on  the  extreme  western  outposts  of  Eurasia,  it  has 
more  than  its  share  of  generalized  and  low  types  surviving 
in  the  living  populations,  and  these  types,  the  Firbolgs, 
have  imparted  a  distinct  and  very  undesirable  aspect  to  a 
large  portion  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  west  and  south  and 
have  greatly  lowered  the  intellectual  status  of  the  popula¬ 
tion  as  a  whole.  The  cross  between  these  elements  and  the 


xThe  quotations  I  have  chosen  from  Mr.  Madison  Grant’s  chapter  on  Racial 
Aptitudes  most  certainly  do  not  do  justice  to  that  author,  but  they  seemed  to 
me  to  summarize  his  general  position  briefly.  The  entire  book  should  be  read  to 
appreciate  the  soundness  of  Mr.  Grant’s  position  and  the  compelling  force  of  his 
arguments. 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


185 


Nordics  appears  to  be  a  bad  one,  and  the  mental  and  cul¬ 
tural  traits  of  the  aborigines  have  proved  to  be  exceedingly 
persistent  and  appear  especially  in  the  unstable  tempera¬ 
ment  and  the  lack  of  coordinating  and  reasoning  power, 
so  often  found  among  the  Irish.  To  the  dominance  of  the 
Mediterraneans  mixed  with  Pre-Neolithic  survivals  in  the 
south  and  west  are  to  be  attributed  the  aloofness  of  the  is¬ 
land  from  the  general  trend  of  European  civilization  and 
its  long  adherence  to  ancient  forms  of  religion  and  even  to 
Pre-Christian  superstitions.”  (pp.  202-203.) 

The  immigrants  in  this  country  from  Italy  come  mostly 
from  Southern  Italy  and  Sicily.  The  following  quotation 
from  Ripley 1  concerning  Sicily  is  significant : 

“Commanding  both  straits  at  the  waist  of  the  Mediter¬ 
ranean,  it  has  been,  as  Freeman  in  his  masterly  description 
puts  it,  ‘the  meeting  place  of  the  nations.’  Tempting,  there¬ 
fore,  and  accessible,  this  island  has  been  incessantly  over¬ 
run  by  invaders  from  all  over  Europe — Sicani,  Siculi,  Feni- 
cii,  Greeks,  and  Romans,  followed  by  Albanians,  Vandals, 
Goths,  Saracens,  Normans,  and  last  by  the  French  and 
Spaniards.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  its  people  are  less  pure  in 
physical  type  than  the  Sardinians  or  even  the  Calabrians  of 
the  mainland  near  by?  Especially  is  this  noticeable  on  its 
southern  coasts,  always  more  open  to  colonization  than  the 
northern  edge.  Nor  is  it  surprising,  as  Freeman  rightly 
adds,  that  ‘for  the  very  reason  that  Sicily  has  found  dwell¬ 
ing  places  for  so  many  nations,  a  Sicilian  nation  there 
never  has  been.’”  (p.  271.) 

The  secret  of  the  whole  dilemma  is  the  intermingling  of 
races  around  the  Mediterranean  littoral  in  the  last  2500 
years.  It  is  beside  the  point  to  contrast  our  results  obtained 
by  the  actual  psychological  measurements  of  living  repre- 


^illiam  Z.  Ripley.  The  Races  of  Europe.  New  York,  1899,  p.  G24. 


186 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


sentatives  of  this  race  with  the  attainments  of  the  tem¬ 
porary  civilizations  that  flared  up  in  historical  times.  The 
whole  question  of  the  degeneration  of  these  peoples  has 
been  discussed  by  Mr.  Charles  W.  Gould,1  and  our  results 
from  the  examinations  of  drafted  men  born  in  these  regions 
support  his  position. 

It  is  rather  difficult  to  compare  our  results  from  the 
race  groups  with  the  various  hypotheses  erected  by  Pro¬ 
fessor  William  McDougall,2  who,  while  he  does  not  claim 
for  the  Nordic  race  “any  general  innate  superiority”  (p. 
29),  analyzes  the  mental  constitution  of  this  race  and  the 
other  European  races  in  such  a  way  that  an  examination 
of  his  theories  will  be  interesting.  Professor  McDougall’s 
hypotheses,  very  briefly  and  inadequately  stated  are:  that 
the  Nordic  is  stronger  in  the  instinct  of  curiosity,  the  root 
of  wonder,  than  the  Mediterranean;  the  herd  instinct,  the 
root  of  sociability,  is  stronger  in  the  Mediterranean  than  in 
the  Nordic;  the  Nordic  is  constitutionally  introvert,  the 
Mediterranean  constitutionally  extrovert;  the  instinct  of 
self-assertion  is  strong  in  the  Nordic;  the  Alpine  is  introvert 
but  not  so  strongly  introvert  as  the  Nordic;  the  Alpine  has 
a  high  degree  of  sociability,  is  perhaps  relatively  weak  in 
curiosity,  and  strong  in  the  instinct  of  submission. 

In  discussing  innate  differences  in  instinctive  endowment, 
psychologists  are  still  more  or  less  in  a  speculative  realm, 
but  the  field  is  open  to  experimental  attack,  and  a  body  of 
knowledge  based  on  experimentation  is  gradually  growing. 
At  the  present  time  we  must  rely  on  concensus  of  opinion 
rather  then  experiment.  A  census  of  text-books  on  psychol- 
ogy  would  show  “curiosity”  usually  listed  as  an  instinctive 

Charles  TV.  Gould.  America,  a  Family  Matter.  New  York,  1922,  p.  196. 
2William  McDougall.  Is  America  Safe  for  Democracy .  New  York,  1921,  p.  213. 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


187 


tendency.  If  we  follow  Professor  Thorndike1  in  his  analysis, 
and  eliminate  many  tendencies  that  others  include,  we  shall 
still  have  left  the  instincts  of  multiform  mental  and  phy¬ 
sical  activity  as  the  potent  movers  of  men’s  economic  and 
recreative  activities,  (p.  144.)  If  any  instinctive  tendency 
finds  expression  in  the  tasks  assigned  by  the  army  tests,  it 
is  this  instinct  for  multiform  mental  activity,  more  vaguely 
termed  “curiosity.”  Our  tests,  however,  measure  the  end 
result  of  such  a  tendency  and  not  the  tendency  itself,  and 
it  is  only  in  this  vague  way  that  our  results  showing  the 
definite  intellectual  superiority  of  the  Nordic  race  can  be 
taken  as  substantiating  or  contributing  to  Professor  Mc- 
Dougall’s  hypothesis. 

It  is  difficult  to  check  our  results  from  the  analysis  of  the 
foreign  born  white  draft  by  country  of  birth  (reported  in 
Section  VI)  with  the  results  of  other  investigators,  on  ac¬ 
count  of  the  different  tests  that  were  used,  and  the  differ¬ 
ent  methods  of  selecting  subjects.  Miss  Murdoch2  exam¬ 
ined,  by  means  of  the  Pressey  group  point  scale,  500  Jew¬ 
ish  children  and  500  Italian  children  at  one  school  in  New 
York  City,  and  500  American  children  and  230  negro 
children  at  another  school.  The  American  and  Jewish  chil¬ 
dren  tested  about  the  same.  About  15%  of  the  Italians 
equalled  or  exceeded  the  median  of  the  Jews,  and  about 
30%  of  the  negroes  equalled  or  exceeded  the  median  of  the 
Jews.  The  investigation  equalizes  the  environmental  factor 
by  selecting,  in  one  instance,  Italians  and  Jews  from  the 
same  school  and  consequently  from  the  same  general 
neighborhood  (East  110th  St.  near  2nd  Ave.),  and,  in  the 
other  instance,  by  selecting  native  white  and  negro  chil- 


:E.  L.  Thorndike,  Educational  Psychology,  Vol.  I.  The  Original  Nature  of  Man , 
New  York,  1919,  p.  327. 

2K.  Murdoch.  A  Study  of  Race  Differences  in  New  York  City.  School  and  Society, 
1920,  pp.  11,  147-150. 


188 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


dren  from  the  same  general  neighborhood  (West  side,  8th 
Ave.,  near  140th  St.),  but  the  American  children  living  in 
this  neighborhood  can  not  be  taken  as  typical  of  the 
country  as  a  whole. 

Miss  Arlitt1  concludes  from  her  examination  of  343  chil¬ 
dren,  (191  native  born  Americans,  87  Italians,  and  71  ne¬ 
groes),  by  the  Stanford-Binet  scale,  that  “there  is  a  marked 
difference  in  the  distribution  of  intelligence  in  groups  of 
the  same  race  but  different  social  status,”  and  states  that 
“race  norms  which  do  not  take  the  social  status  factor  into 
account  are  apt  to  be  to  that  extent  invalid.”  (p.  183.) 
This  position  seems  to  ignore  the  observation,  repeatedly 
confirmed  by  experiment,  that  children  from  the  profes¬ 
sional,  semi-professional  and  higher  business  classes  have, 
on  the  whole,  an  hereditary  endowment  superior  to  that 
of  children  from  the  semi-skilled  and  unskilled  laboring 
classes.  Ter  man 2  states  “It  has  in  fact  been  found  wherever 
comparisons  have  been  made  that  children  of  superior 
social  status  yield  a  higher  average  mental  age  than  chil¬ 
dren  of  the  laboring  classes.  .  .  .  However,  the  common 
opinion  that  the  child  from  a  cultured  home  does  better  in 
tests  solely  by  reason  of  his  superior  home  advantages  is 
an  entirely  gratuitous  assumption.  Practically  all  of  the  in¬ 
vestigations  which  have  been  made  of  the  influence  of 
nature  and  nurture  on  mental  performance  agree  in  attrib¬ 
uting  far  more  to  original  endowment  than  to  environ¬ 
ment.  Common  observation  would  itself  suggest  that  the 
social  class  to  which  the  family  belongs  depends  less  on 
chance  than  on  the  parents’  native  qualities  of  intellect  and 
character.”  (p.  115.) 


lA.  H.  Arlitt.  On  the  Need  for  Caution  in  Establishing  Race  Norms.  Journal  of 
Applied  Psychology,  1921,  pp.  5,  179-183. 

2L.  M.  Terman.  The  Measurement  of  Intelligence.  Boston,  1916,  p.  362. 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


189 


One  frequently  hears  the  opinion  expressed  in  scientific 
circles  that  differences  found  between  racial  groups  can 
not  be  attributed  to  race  unless  the  individuals  examined 
are  drawn  from  the  same  social  milieu.  Miss  Arlitt  finds 
native  born  white  children  of  inferior  and  very  inferior 
social  status  above  the  Italian  and  negro  children  in  in¬ 
telligence,  but  attributes  the  larger  differences  found  be¬ 
tween  the  entire  native  white  group  and  the  Italian  and 
negro  groups  to  the  fact  that  three  eighths  of  the  native 
white  children  come  from  homes  of  superior  and  very 
superior  social  status.  In  the  same  way,  Miss  Murdoch 
finds  Jews  living  near  East  110th  St.  and  2nd  Ave.  in  New 
York  City  not  very  inferior  to  native  born  whites  living 
in  the  mixed  white  and  negro  section  around  8th  Ave.  and 
140th  St.  The  equalization  of  the  environmental  factor 
is  a  necessary  control  in  certain  phases  of  scientific  experi¬ 
ments  on  race  differences,  but  conclusions  as  to  the  intelli¬ 
gence  of  racial  groups  must  be  drawn  from  samples  taken 
at  random  from  the  entire  country.  These  conditions  are 
more  nearly  met  by  the  army  sampling  of  individuals  in 
the  draft.  Our  samples  of  81,465  native  born  individuals  in 
the  white  draft,  of  12,492  foreign  born  individuals,  and 
23,596  negroes  are  drawn  impartially  from  every  section 
of  the  country.  If  we  selected  our  native  born  Americans 
from  those  who  live  in  the  same  squalid  conditions  in  which 
we  find  most  of  our  negro  and  foreign  born  population,  we 
would  not  have  a  fair  sample. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  our  army  data  classify  foreign 
born  individuals  only  by  country  of  origin,  so  that  we  have 
no  separate  intelligence  distributions  for  the  Jews.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  the  1910  census,  about  50%  of  the  foreign  born  popu¬ 
lation  reporting  Russia  as  their  country  of  origin  spoke 
Hebrew  or  Yiddish,  about  25%  spoke  Polish,  less  than  3% 
spoke  Russian,  and  the  rest  spoke  Lithuanian,  Lettish, 


190 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


German,  Finnish,  Ruthenian  and  other  tongues.  From  the 
immigration  statistics  showing  aliens  admitted  classified 
according  to  race  or  people,  we  find  about  10%  (arriving 
between  1900  and  1920)  reported  as  Hebrew.  It  is  fair  to 
assume  that  our  army  sample  of  immigrants  from  Russia 
is  at  least  one  half  Jewish,  and  that  the  sample  we  have 
selected  as  Alpine1  is  from  one  fifth  to  one  fourth  Jewish. 

Our  figures,  then,  would  rather  tend  to  disprove  the 
popular  belief  that  the  Jew7  is  highly  intelligent.  Immi¬ 
grants  examined  in  the  army,  wrho  report  their  birthplace 
as  Russia,  had  an  average  intelligence  below  those  from 
all  other  countries  except  Poland  and  Italy.  It  is  perhaps 
significant  to  note,  howrever,  that  the  sample  from  Russia 
has  a  higher  standard  deviation  (2.83)  than  that  of  any 
other  immigrant  group  sampled,  and  that  the  Alpine 
group  has  a  higher  standard  deviation  than  the  Nordic  or 
Mediterranean  groups  (2.60).  If  we  assume  that  the  Jewish 
immigrants  have  a  low7  average  intelligence,  but  a  higher 
variability  than  other  nativity  groups,  this  would  reconcile 
our  figures  w7ith  popular  belief,  and,  at  the  same  time,  with 
the  fact  that  investigators  searching  for  talent  in  New  York 
City  and  California  schools  find  a  frequent  occurence  of 
talent  among  Jewish  children,  The  able  Jew  is  popularly 
recognized  not  only  because  of  his  ability,  but  because  he 
is  able  and  a  Jew7. 

Our  results  showing  the  marked  intellectual  inferiority 
of  the  negro  are  corrobated  by  practically  all  of  the  in¬ 
vestigators  w7ho  have  used  psychological  tests  on  white  and 
negro  groups.  This  inferiority  holds  even  when  a  low  in¬ 
tellectual  sampling  of  whites  is  made  by  selecting  only 


^here  is  no  serious  objection,  from  the  anthropological  standpoint,  to  classi¬ 
fying  the  northern  Jew  as  an  Alpine,  for  he  has  the  head  form,  stature,  and  color 
of  his  Slavic  neighbors.  He  is  an  Alpine  Slav. 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


191 


those  who  live  in  the  same  environment,  and  who  have  had 
the  same  educational  opportunities.  Professor  Ferguson,1 
who  has  studied  the  problem  most  carefully,  concludes  that 
in  general  25%  of  the  negroes  exceed  the  median  white.  Our 
figures  show  a  greater  difference  than  he  estimates,  less 
than  12%  of  the  negroes  exceeding  the  average  of  the 
native  born  white  draft.  Professor  Ferguson  also  estimates 
that  20%  of  pure  negroes,  25%  of  negroes  three  quarters 
pure,  30%  of  the  true  mulattoes,  and  35%  of  the  quad¬ 
roons  equal  or  exceed  the  average  score  of  comparable 
whites. 

The  discrepancies  between  data  from  various  investiga¬ 
tors  as  to  the  amount  of  difference  between  negroes  and 
whites  probably  result  from  different  methods  of  selecting 
whites.  If  we  compare  negroes  only  to  those  whites  who 
live  in  the  same  neighborhood,  and  who  have  had  the 
same  educational  opportunities,  our  differences  are  smaller 
than  those  obtained  by  comparing  samples  of  the  entire 
white  and  negro  populations. 

Some  writers  would  account  for  the  differences  found 
between  white  and  negro  by  differences  of  educational 
opportunity  alone.  The  army  tests  showed  the  northern 
negro  superior  to  the  southern  negro,  and  this  superiority 
is  attributed  to  the  superior  educational  opportunities  in 
the  North.  The  educational  record  of  the  negro  sample  we 
are  studying  shows  that  more  than  half  of  the  negroes  from 
the  southern  States  did  not  go  beyond  the  third  grade,  and 
only  7%  finished  the  eighth  grade,  while  about  half  of  the 
northern  negroes  finished  the  fifth  grade,  and  a  quarter 
finished  the  eighth  grade.  That  the  difference  between  the 
northern  and  southern  negro  is  not  entirely  due  to  school- 


XG.  O.  Ferguson.  The  Mental  Status  of  the  American  Negro.  Scientific  Monthly, 
1921,  pp.  12,  533-543. 


192 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


ing,  but  partly  to  intelligence,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
groups  of  southern  and  northern  negroes  of  equal  schooling 
show  striking  differences  in  intelligence. 

The  superior  intelligence  measurements  of  the  northern 
negro  are  due  to  three  factors :  first,  the  greater  amount  of 
educational  opportunity,  which  does  affect,  to  some  ex¬ 
tent,  scores  on  our  present  intelligence  tests;  second,  the 
greater  amount  of  admixture  of  white  blood;  and,  third, 
the  operation  of  economic  and  social  forces,  such  as  higher 
wages,  better  living  conditions,  identical  school  privileges, 
and  a  less^complete  social  ostracism,  tending  to  draw  the 
more  intelligent  negro  to  the  North.  It  is  impossible  to 
dissect  out  of  this  complex  of  forces  the  relative  weight  of 
each  factor.  No  psychologist  would  maintain  that  the  men¬ 
tal  tests  he  is  now  using  do  not  measure  educational  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  some  extent.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  absurd  to 
attribute  all  differences  found  between  northern  and  south¬ 
ern  negroes  to  superior  educational  opportunities  in  the 
North,  for  differences  are  found  between  groups  of  the  same 
schooling,  and  differences  are  shown  by  beta  as  well  as 
by  alpha. 

At  the  present  stage  of  development  of  psychological 
tests,  we  can  not  measure  the  actual  amount  of  difference 
in  intelligence  due  to  race  or  nativity.  We  can  only  prove 
that  differences  do  exist,  and  we  can  interpret  these  differ¬ 
ences  in  terms  that  have  great  social  and  economic  signifi¬ 
cance.  The  intellectual  superiority  of  our  Nordic  group  over 
the  Alpine,  Mediterranean,  and  negro  groups  has  been 
demonstrated.  If  a  person  is  unwilling  to  accept  the  race 
hypothesis  as  developed  here,  he  may  go  back  to  the 
original  nativity  groups,  and  he  can  not  deny  the  fact  that 
differences  exist. 

When  our  methods  of  measuring  intellectual  capacity 
have  been  perfected,  we  will  be  in  a  position  to  determine 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


193 


quantitatively  the  amount  of  race  differences.  Rough  group 
tests  of  the  type  we  are  now  using  will  indicate  the  fact 
that  differences  exist.  However,  while  scientists  are  perfect¬ 
ing  their  methods  of  examining,  it  would  be  well  for  them 
to  perfect  their  logic  at  the  same  time.  Particularly  mis¬ 
leading  and  unsound  is  the  theory  that  disregards  all  dif¬ 
ferences  found  between  racial  groups  unless  the  groups 
have  had  the  same  educational  and  environmental  oppor¬ 
tunities. 

This  theory  in  its  most  extreme  form  is  set  forth  by 
Garth1  as  follows: 

“The  elements  in  a  study  of  racial  mental  similarities  or 
differences  must  be  these:  (1)  Two  so-called  races  Rx  and 
R2,  (2)  an  equal  amount  of  educational  opportunity,  E, 
which  should  include  social  pressure  and  racial  patterns  of 
thought,  and  (3)  psychological  tests,  D,  within  the  grasp 
of  both  racial  groups.  We  should  have  as  a  result  of  our 
experiment  Rx  E  D  equal  to,  greater  than,  or  less  than  R2 
E  D.  In  this  experiment  the  only  unknown  elements  should 
be  Rx  and  R2.  If  E  could  be  made  equal  the  experiment 
could  be  worked. 

“This  element  of  educational  opportunity-nurture,  is  the 
one  causing  most  of  the  trouble  in  racial  psychology  as  an 
uncontrollable  element.  It  does  not  offer  quite  so  much 
difficulty  in  the  study  of  sex  differences,  yet  it  is  there 
only  in  smaller  degree  than  in  racial  differences,  and  as  it 
is  controlled  the  ‘sex  differences’  tend  to  disappear.  Since 
this  element  of  education,  or  nurture,  cannot  be  eliminated 
it  would  be  safer  to  take  for  comparison  such  racial  groups 
as  have  had  as  nearly  the  same  educational  opportunity  as 
is  possible  having  any  disparity  of  this  sort  well  in  mind 
when  we  interpret  the  results  of  the  experiment.  Having 

!T.  R.  Garth.  White,  Indian  and  Negro  Work  Curves.  Journal  of  Applied  Psy¬ 
chology,  1921,  5,  14-25. 


194 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


done  this,  we  first  take  the  complete  distributions  on  the 
scale  of  measurement  for  the  groups  as  statements  of  the 
true  facts  of  the  case,  race  for  race.  We  then  combine  these 
distributions  into  a  total  distribution  of  accomplishment 
of  all  the  races  taken  together  to  see  if  we  have  multimodal 
effects.  Should  we  find  these  effects  we  may  conclude  that 
we  have  evidence  of  types,  or  racial  types,  and  there  should 
in  this  case  be  one  mode  for  each  racial  group.  But  should 
the  combined  distribution  for  the  several  racial  groups 
reveal  only  one  mode  we  may  conclude  that  the  test  reveals 
no  types — no  real  racial  differences  but  rather  similarities.” 
(p-  16.) 

If  intelligence  counts  for  anything  in  the  competition 
among  human  beings,  it  is  natural  to  expect  that  individ¬ 
uals  of  superior  intelligence  will  adjust  themselves  more 
easily  to  their  physical  and  social  environment,  and  that 
they  will  endow  their  children  not  only  with  material 
goods,  but  with  the  ability  to  adjust  themselves  to  the 
same  or  a  more  complex  environment.  To  select  individuals 
who  have  fallen  behind  in  the  struggle  to  adjust  themselves 
to  the  civilization  their  race  has  built  as  typical  of  that 
race  is  an  error,  for  their  position  itself  shows  that  they 
are,  for  the  most  part,  individuals  with  an  inferior  heredi¬ 
tary  endowment. 

t / 

In  the  same  wav,  our  educational  institutions  are  them- 
selves  a  part  of  our  own  race  heritage.  The  average  negro 
child  can  not  advance  through  an  educational  curriculum 
adapted  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  child  in  step  with  that  child. 
To  select  children  of  equal  education,  age  for  age,  in  the 
two  groups,  is  to  sample  either  superior  negroes  or  inferior 
whites. 

The  scientific  problem  is  that  of  eliminating  from  the 
tests  used  as  measuring  instruments  those  particular  tests 
which  demonstrably  measure  nurture,  and  to  measure, 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


195 


with  genuine  tests  of  native  intelligence,  random  or  im¬ 
partial  samples  from  each  race  throughout  the  entire  range 
of  its  geographical  and  institutional  distribution. 


CONCLUSIONS 


Our  study  of  the  army  tests  of  foreign  born  individuals 
has  pointed  at  every  step  to  the  conclusion  that  the  aver¬ 
age  intelligence  of  our  immigrants  is  declining.  This  deteri¬ 
oration  in  the  intellectual  level  of  immigrants  has  been 
found  to  be  due  to  two  causes.  The  migrations  of  the  Alpine 
and  Mediterranean  races  have  increased  to  such  an  extent 
in  the  last  thirty  or  forty  years  that  this  blood  now  consti- 
tutes  70%  or  75%  of  the  total  immigration.  The  represen¬ 
tatives  of  the  Alpine  and  Mediterranean  races  in  our 
immigration  are  intellectually  inferior  to  the  representa¬ 
tives  of  the  Nordic  race  which  formerly  made  up  about 
50%  of  our  immigration.  In  addition,  we  find  that  we  are 
getting  progressively  lower  and  lower  types  from  each 
nativity  group  or  race. 

In  the  light  of  our  findings  in  Sections  IV  and  IX,  it  is  pos¬ 
sible  to  re-draw  our  curve  (Figure  33)  representing  in¬ 
crease  of  intelligence  score  with  increasing  years  of  residence 
and  to  represent  it  truly  as  in  Figure  46,  which  shows  the 
decline  of  intelligence  with  each  succeeding  period  of  im¬ 
migration. 

It  is  also  possible  to  make  a  picture  of  the  elements  now 
entering  into  American  intelligence.  At  one  extreme  we 
have  the  distribution  of  the  Nordic  race  group.  At  the 
other  extreme  we  have  the  American  negro.  Between  the 
Nordic  and  the  negro,  but  closer  to  the  negro  than  to  the 
Nordic,  we  find  the  Alpine  and  Mediterranean  types.  These 
distributions  we  have  projected  together  in  Figure  47. 

Throughout  this  study  all  measurements  have  been  made 
in  terms  of  averages  and  variability  about  the  average.  In 
interpreting  averages,  we  must  never  forget  that  they  stand 


197 


16-20 

J 1-15 

6-10 

0-5 

1898 

1903 

1908 

1913 

TO 

TO 

TO 

TO 

1902 

1907 

1912 

1917 

YEARS  RESIDENCE  IN  UNITED  STATES 


198 


1887 

TO 

1897 


Figure  46.  The  decline  of  intelligence  with  each  succeeding  period 
of  immigration.  The  apparent  increase  of  intelligence  with  in¬ 
creasing  length  of  residence,  as  shown  in  Figure  33,  has  been 
proved  to  be  a  progressive  decrease  in  the  intellectual  level  of 
immigrants  coming  to  this  country  in  each  succeeding  five-year 
period  since  1902.  The  evidence  indicates  that  the  immigrants 
prior  to  1902  were  intellectually  equal  to  the  native  born  white 
draft.  The  army  sample  of  “native  born”  includes,  besides  na¬ 
tive  born  of  native  parentage,  the  native  born  of  foreign  or  mixed 
parentage.  It  is  perhaps  possible  that  the  native  born  of  native 
parentage  might  have  tested  higher  than  13.77.  The  position  of 
the  white  draft  born  in  England  is  shown  above.  Although  the 
true  position  of  the  native  born  American  may  be  a  matter  of 
speculation,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  more  recent  immigrants 
are  intellectually  closer  to  the  negro  than  to  the  native  born 
white  sample. 


199 


TOTAL  NORDIC  — . COMBINED  ALPINE  AND  MEDITERRANEAN - NEGRO  DRAFT 


a  i-s 

^  =  = 
^  3  05 

4H  © 

C  S  Sh 


05 


3 

© 

r* 

a 

u 

Sh 

© 


o’  >5 
s-  c  " 
cl  « 
0)  CO 
G  ^ 


S3 

c 

3 

© 

© 

u 


X 


3 
G2 

•  p-i  j_> 

Sh  — 

-j->  no 

.2  « 

©  s 

pG  G3  C 

Eh  ©  o 

^  3  -h 

©  32  .G 

a  2 


3  © 
=£ 

.2  2 

Sh  *1 

©  ^ 

•*j  > 

©  3 

''d 

© 

bfi-G 


3 

05 


2  x 


D  O 

b£  «  'a 
c3 
*-» 


3  2 


gs  « 

.2  +s  «« 
g  . 

•i— i  ^ 


© 


S3 

O 

Sh 

fel 


3 

■"H 

< 


3 

3  © 

G  u 

5  feJD 

H  O 

SH  fH 

o  ^ 

.■a  © 

T3 

qj  3 

_ Sh 

© 
> 
3 

© 


©  £  ,© 


3 

3 

© 

"£ 

© 


<~>  05 

E"  M 
3  © 
c  a 

Sh  C 
fel  Sh 


© 


C  l3  -G 

2  c  H 

c  £ 

05  Sm 

©  3 

Sh  Sh 


3 

©  *43 
£  G 
©  © 
H-H 
© 


•>  3 
05  Sh 
■+H  O 

S  ^ 

s  © 

©  h3 

©  ^ 
«4H 

©  c 

05 

33 

s+H  c © 


33 

3 

3 


© 

G  £ 
*G  © 

f— ( 

<  33 

©  © 

33  ^ 
~  3 


a: 

fH  _ 

5" 

© 

Sh 


O 
Sh 

(U  bC 

©  u 


3  ■+ 

©  ^ 
3  't 


© 


05 

3 

O 

© 

© 


05  33 

©  3 


33 

© 

© 

© 

X  g 

©  bl 

Gh  g 

3  G 

G  ^  ©  O 

..  23  H  sh 

&i  “2 

3  '■G  ©  Sh 

Sh  <  3;  © 

O  ^  33  -M 
•  H  33 

©  ©  y, 
©  ^  © 
C  Xh  HH 


> 

3 


3 

3 


© 


© 


bl  G 


© 

05 

© 

© 


05  43 


© 


.  5  cl, 
*>  bl  © 
^  33  3 


© 


+H  3 
©  a 

bl,Svo  G 

G  ^ 

3  G  *3  3? 

=  g  »< 

a  'C 


<u 


£1.5  < 


© 
3 

3  32  ^ 

.s<<^ 


201 


202 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


for  an  entire  distribution.  Careless  thinkers  are  prone  to 
select  one  or  two  striking  examples  of  ability  from  a  partic¬ 
ular  group,  and  then  rest  confidently  in  the  belief  that 
they  have  overthrown  an  argument  based  on  the  total  dis¬ 
tribution  of  ability.  The  Fourth  of  July  orator  can  con¬ 
vincingly  raise  the  popular  belief  in  the  intellectual  level 
of  Poland  by  shouting  the  name  of  Kosciusko  from  a  high 
platform,  but  he  can  not  alter  the  distribution  of  the  intel¬ 
ligence  of  the  Polish  immigrant.  All  countries  send  men  of 
exceptional  ability  to  America,  but  the  point  is  that  some 
send  fewer  than  others. 

Our  distribution  curve  of  intelligence  includes  ability  as 
well  as  defect.  The  English  speaking  Nordic  group,  for  in¬ 
stance,  averages  13.84,  and  furnishes  at  one  extreme  about 
40  men  in  1000  who  are  above  the  average  white  officer, 
while  at  the  other  extreme,  the  group  furnishes  about  8  in 
1000  who  are  below  an  estimated  “mental  age”  of  eight.  A 
distribution  further  down  the  scale  contributes  more  to  the 
lower  orders  of  intelligence.  The  distribution  of  the  intel¬ 
ligence  scores  of  the  negro  draft,  for  instance,  indicates  that 
they  contribute  only  4  in  1000  above  the  average  white 
officer,  while  they  give  us  100  in  1000  below  the  approxi¬ 
mate  “mental  age”  of  eight.  The  Alpine  and  Mediterranean 
races  give  us  only  5  or  10  in  1000  above  the  average  ability 
of  the  white  officer,  and  about  40  in  1000  below  the  “mental 
age”  of  eight.  About  350  in  1000  of  the  Alpine  and  Mediter¬ 
ranean  types  are  below  the  average  negro. 

The  intellectual  characteristics  of  the  immigration  to  the 
United  States  as  measured  by  the  samples  in  the  draft  have 
been  reported  in  this  study,  first  by  country  of  birth,  and 
second  by  race.  Parallel  with  the  measurements  of  intel¬ 
ligence,  the  figures  on  immigration  have  been  presented. 
To  complete  the  picture,  there  is  presented  in  Table  38 
the  population  of  the  United  States  according  to  the  1920 


Table  No.  38 

Population  of  the  United  States  in  1930 

Native  White  of  Native  Parentage.  .58,4-1,957 
Native  White  of  Foreign  Parentage .  15,694,539 
Native  White  of  Mixed  Parentage .  .  6,991,665 


Total  Native  White 
Foreign  Born  White 

Negro . 

Indian . 

Chinese . 

Japanese . 

All  others: 

Filipinos.  . 

Hindus.  .  . 

Koreans . . . 

Hawaiians . 

Malays  .  .  . 

Siamese.  .  . 

Samoans.  . 

Maoris.  .  . 


5,603 

2,507 

1,224 

110 

19 

17 

6 

o 


81,108,161 

13,712,754 

10,463,131 

244,437 

61,639 

111,010 


Total  all  others 


9,488 


Total  Population 


105,710,620 


NOTE:  Clinton  Stoddard  Burr  in  Americas  Race  Heritage  (New  York:  The 
National  Historical  Society,  1922,  pp.  327)  estimates  that  in  1920  there  were 
•44,689,278  descendents  of  the  old  Colonial  white  stock. 


203 


204 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


census.1  We  have  with  us  approximately  15  7/10  millions 
of  individuals  of  foreign  parentage,  7  millions  of  mixed 
parentage,  13  7/10  millions  of  foreign  born,  and  10  Yl 
millions  of  negroes.  Roughly,  in  every  100  of  our  popula¬ 
tion,  55  are  native  born  of  native  parentage,  and  the  other 
45  foreign  born,  or  of  foreign,  mixed,  or  colored  parentage. 
The  group  of  native  born  of  native  parentage  includes 
many  children  of  the  immigrants  coming  to  this  country 
prior  to  1890. 

Our  immigration  figures  show  a  very  decided  shift  from 
the  Nordic  in  favor  of  the  Alpine.  The  immigration  between 
1820  and  1890  probably  never  contained  more  than  50% 
or  60%  Nordic  blood,  and  prior  to  1820  there  was  very 
little  immigration.  The  earliest  settlers  were  almost  pure 
Nordic  types,  and  we  may  assume  the  existence  by  1820 
of  a  race  as  predominantly  Nordic  as  that  of  England.  This 
recent  change  was,  of  course,  reflected  in  the  cross  section 
of  the  foreign  born  population  taken  at  1910,  and  which 
constitutes  the  basis  of  our  present  immigration  act  re¬ 
stricting  immigration  to  3%  of  the  nationals  then  resident 
here.  A  rough  estimate  of  the  racial  composition  of  the 
quotas  from  various  countries  admissable  under  the  new 
law  shows  about  35%  Nordic  blood,  45%  Alpine  blood  and 
20%  Mediterranean  blood  in  the  annual  stream  of  ap¬ 
proximately  1/3  of  a  million  that  may  enter. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  recent  history  has  shown  a 
movement  of  inferior  peoples  or  inferior  representatives  of 

1Too  much  reliance  can  not  be  placed  on  the  census  returns  for  the  foreign  born 
white  population.  The  1910  census  shows  the  foreign  born  white  population  as 
13,345,545,  while  the  1920  census  shows  that  population  as  13,712,754,  which 
gives  a  net  increase  of  367,209.  On  the  other  hand,  the  figures  of  the  Commis¬ 
sioner  General  of  Immigration  show  by  actual  count  at  the  ports  5,725,811 
aliens  admitted  and  2,146,994  aliens  departed,  leaving  a  net  increase  of  3,578,817 
for  the  same  period  covered  by  the  two  censuses  (1910  and  1920).  Inasmuch  as 
the  enumerators  could  not  have  missed  three  million,  they  are  probably  counted 
among  the  native  white. 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


20  5 


peoples  to  this  country.  Few  people  realize  the  magnitude 
of  this  movement  or  the  speed  with  which  it  has  taken 
place.  Since  1901,  less  than  a  single  generation,  it  may  be 
estimated  that  about  10,000,000  Alpine  and  Mediterran¬ 
ean  types  have  come  to  this  country.  Allowing  for  the  re¬ 
turn  of  1/3  or  3/8  of  these,  and  using  our  army  estimates 
of  intellectual  ability,  this  would  give  us  over  2,000,000 
immigrants  below  the  average  negro. 

We  may  consider  that  the  population  of  the  United 
States  is  made  up  of  four  racial  elements,  the  Nordic, 
Alpine,  and  Mediterranean  races  of  Europe,  and  the  negro. 
If  these  four  types  blend  in  the  future  into  one  general 
American  type,  then  it  is  a  foregone  conclusion  that  this 
future  blended  American  will  be  less  intelligent  than  the 
present  native  born  American,  for  the  general  results  of  the 
admixture  of  higher  and  lower  orders  of  intelligence  must 
inevitably  be  a  mean  between  the  two. 

If  we  turn  to  the  history  of  races,  we  find  that  as  a  general 
rule  where  two  races  have  been  in  contact  they  have  inter- 
mingled,  and  a  cross  between  the  two  has  resulted.  Europe 
shows  many  examples  of  areas  where  the  anthropological 
characteristics  of  one  race  shade  over  into  those  of  another 
race  where  the  two  have  intermixed,  and,  indeed,  in  coun¬ 
tries  such  as  France  and  Switzerland  it  is  only  in  areas  that 
are  geographically  or  economically  isolated  that  one  finds 
types  that  are  relatively  pure.  The  Mongol-Tatar  element 
in  Russia  is  an  integral  part  of  the  population.  The  Mediter¬ 
ranean  race  throughout  the  area  of  its  contact  with  the 
negro  has  crossed  with  him.  Some  of  the  Berbers  in 
Northern  Africa  show  negroid  characteristics,  and  in  India 
the  Mediterranean  race  has  crossed  with  the  Dravidians 
and  Pre-Dra vidian  negroids.  The  population  of  Sardinia 
shows  a  number  of  negroid  characteristics.  Turn  where  we 
may,  history  gives  us  no  great  exception  to  the  general  rule 


206 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


that  propinquity  leads  to  opportunity  and  opportunity  to 
intermixture. 

In  considering  racial  crosses,  Professor  Conklin1  states 
that  “It  is  highly  probable  that  while  some  of  these  hy¬ 
brids  may  show  all  the  bad  qualities  of  both  parents,  others 
may  show  the  good  qualities  of  both  and  indeed  in  this  re¬ 
spect  resemble  the  children  in  any  pure-bred  family.  But 
it  is  practically  certain  that  the  general  or  average  results 
of  the  crossing  of  a  superior  and  an  inferior  race  are  to 
strike  a  balance  somewhere  between  the  two.  This  is  no 
contradiction  of  the  principles  of  Mendelian  inheritance 
but  rather  the  application  of  these  principles  to  a  general 
population.  The  general  effect  of  the  hybridization  of  races 
can  not  fail  to  lead  to  a  lowering  of  the  qualities  of  the 
higher  race  and  a  raising  of  the  qualities  of  the  lower  one.” 
(pp.  50-51.) 

And  as  to  the  possibility  of  a  cross  between  races  in  the 
future,  Professor  Conklin  writes:  “Even  if  we  are  horrified 
by  the  thought,  we  cannot  hide  the  fact  that  all  present 
signs  point  to  an  intimate  commingling  of  all  existing  hu¬ 
man  types  within  the  next  five  or  ten  thousand  years  at 
most.  Unless  we  can  re-establish  geographical  isolation 
of  races,  we  cannot  prevent  their  interbreeding.  By  rigid 
laws  excluding  immigrants  of  other  races,  such  as  they  have 
in  New  Zealand  and  Australia,  it  may  be  possible  for  a  time 
to  maintain  the  purity  of  the  white  race  in  certain  coun¬ 
tries,  but  with  constantly  increasing  intercommunications 
between  all  lands  and  peoples  such  artificial  barriers  will 
probably  prove  as  ineffectual  in  the  long  run  as  the  Great 
Wall  of  China.  The  races  of  the  world  are  not  drawing  apart 
but  together,  and  it  needs  only  the  vision  that  will  look 


iEdwin  G.  Conklin.  The  Direction  of  Human  Evolution.  Xew  York,  1921,  pp.  247. 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE  207 

ahead  a  few  thousand  years  to  see  the  blending  of  all  racial 
currents  into  a  common  stream.”  (p.  52.) 

If  we  frankly  recognize  the  fact  that  the  crossing  of  races 
in  juxtaposition  has  always  occurred  in  the  past,  what 
evidence  have  we  that  such  crosses  have  had  untoward  con¬ 
sequences?  Our  own  data  from  the  army  tests  indicate 
clearly  the  intellectual  superiority  of  the  Nordic  race 
group.  This  superiority  is  confirmed  by  observation  of  this 
race  in  history.  The  Alpine  race,  according  to  our  figures, 
which  are  supnorted  bv  historical  evidence,  seems  to  be 
considerably  below  the  Nordic  tvpe  intellectually.  How- 
ever,  our  recruits  from  Germany,  which  represents  a  Nordic- 
Alpine  cross,  are  about  the  same  as  those  from  Holland, 
Scotland,  the  United  States,  Denmark,  and  Canada,  coun¬ 
tries  which  have  on  the  whole  a  greater  proportion  of  Nordic 
blood  than  Germany.  Again,  the  Nordic  and  Alpine  mix¬ 
ture  in  Switzerland  has  given  a  stable  people,  who  have 
evolved,  in  spite  of  linguistic  differences,  a  very  advanced 
form  of  government.  The  evidence  indicates  that  the 
Nordic- Alpine  cross,  which  occurred  in  Western  Europe 
when  the  Nordics  overwhelmed  the  Alpines  to  such  an  ex¬ 
tent  that  the  type  was  completely  submerged  and  not 
re-discovered  until  recently,  has  not  given  unfortunate  re¬ 
sults. 

This  evidence,  however,  can  not  be  carried  over  to  indi¬ 
cate  that  a  cross  between  the  Nordic  and  the  Alpine  Slav 
would  be  desirable.  The  Alpines  that  our  data  sample  come 
for  the  most  part  from  an  area  peopled  largely  by  a 
branch  of  the  Alpine  race  which  appeared  late  and  radiated 
from  the  Carpathian  Mountains.  It  is  probably  a  different 
branch  of  the  Alpine  race  from  that  which  forms  the  prim¬ 
itive  substratum  of  the  present  population  of  Western 
Europe.  Our  data  on  the  Alpine  Slav  show  that  he  is  in¬ 
tellectually  inferior  to  the  Nordic,  and  every  indication 


208 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


would  point  to  a  lowering  of  the  average  intelligence  of  the 
Nordic  if  crossed  with  the  Alpine  Slav.  There  can  be  no 
objection  to  the  intermixture  of  races  of  equal  ability,  pro¬ 
vided  the  mingling  proceeds  equally  from  all  sections  of 
the  distribution  of  ability.  Our  data,  however,  indicate  that 
the  Alpine  Slav  we  have  imported  and  to  whom  we  give 
preference  in  our  present  immigration  law  is  intellectually 
inferior  to  the  Nordic  type. 

The  Mediterranean  race  at  its  northern  extension  blends 
with  the  Alpine  very  considerably,  and  to  a  less  extent  with 
the  Nordic.  At  the  point  of  its  furthermost  western  expan¬ 
sion  in  Europe  it  has  crossed  with  the  primitive  types  in 
Ireland.  Throughout  the  area  of  its  southern  and  eastern 
expansion  it  has  crossed  with  negroid  types.  In  this  con¬ 
tinent,  the  Mediterranean  has  crossed  with  the  Amerind 
and  the  imported  negro  very  extensively.  In  general,  the 
Mediterranean  race  has  crossed  with  primitive  race  types 
more  completely  and  promiscuously  than  either  the  Alpine 
or  the  Nordic,  and  with  most  unfortunate  results. 

W  e  must  now  frankly  admit  the  undesirable  results  which 
would  ensue  from  a  cross  between  the  Nordic  in  this  coun¬ 
try  with  the  Alpine  Slav,  with  the  degenerated  hybrid 
Mediterranean,  or  with  the  negro,  or  from  the  promiscu¬ 
ous  intermingling  of  all  four  types.  Granted  the  undesirable 
results  of  such  an  intermingling,  is  there  any  evidence 
showing  that  such  a  process  is  going  on?  Unfortunately  the 
evidence  is  undeniable.  The  1920  census  shows  that  we 
have  7,000,000  native  born  whites  of  mixed  parentage,  a 
fact  which  indicates  clearly  the  number  of  crosses  between 
the  native  born  stock  and  the  European  importations. 

The  evidence  in  regard  to  the  white  and  negro  cross  is 
also  indisputable.  If  we  examine  the  figures  showing  the 
proportion  of  mulattoes  to  a  thousand  blacks  for  each 
twenty  year  period  from  1850  to  1910,  we  find  that  in  1850 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


209 


there  were  126  mulattoes  to  a  thousand  blacks,  136  in  1870, 
179  in  1890  and  264  in  1910.  This  intermixture  of  white  and 
negro  has  been  a  natural  result  of  the  emancipation  of  the 
negro  and  the  breaking  down  of  social  barriers  against  him, 
mostly  in  the  North  and  West.  In  1850,  the  free  colored 
population  showed  581  mulattoes  to  a  thousand  blacks  as 
against  83  in  the  slave  population.  At  each  of  the  four  cen¬ 
suses  (1850,  1870,  1890  and  1910)  the  South,  where  the 
social  barriers  are  more  rigid  than  elsewhere,  has  returned 
the  smallest  proportion  of  mulattoes  to  a  thousand  blacks. 
The  1910  census  showed  201  in  the  South,  266  in  the 
North  and  321  in  the  West,  and  the  West  has  returned  the 
highest  proportion  at  each  of  the  censuses  except  1850. 

W  e  must  face  a  possibility  of  racial  admixture  here  that 
is  infinitely  worse  than  that  faced  by  any  European  country 
to-day,  for  we  are  incorporating  the  negro  into  our  racial 
stock,  while  all  of  Europe  is  comparatively  free  from  this 
taint.  It  is  true  that  the  rate  of  increase  of  the  negro  in  this 
country  by  ten  year  periods  since  1800  has  decreased  rather 
steadily  from  about  30%  to  about  11%,  but  this  declining 
rate  has  given  a  gross  population  increase  from  approximate¬ 
ly  1,000,000  to  approximately  10,000,000.  It  is  also  true  that 
the  negro  now  constitutes  only  about  10%  of  the  total 
population,  where  he  formerly  constituted  18%  or  19% 
(1790  to  1830),  but  part  of  this  decrease  in  percentage  of 
the  total  population  is  due  to  the  great  influx  of  immi¬ 
grants,  and  we  favor  in  our  immigration  law  those  coun¬ 
tries  35%  of  whose  representatives  here  are  below  the  aver¬ 
age  negro.  The  declining  rate  of  increase  in  the  negro 
population  from  1800  to  1910  would  indicate  a  correspond¬ 
ingly  lower  rate  to  be  expected  in  the  future.  From  1900  to 
1920  the  negro  population  increased  18.4%,  while  the  na¬ 
tive  born  white  of  native  parents  increased  42.6%,  and  the 
native  born  white  of  foreign  parents  increased  47.6%.  It  is 


210 


AMERICAN  INTELLIGENCE 


impossible  to  predict  at  the  present  time  that  the  rate  of 
infiltration  of  white  blood  into  the  negro  will  be  checked 
by  the  declining  rate  of  increase  in  the  negro  blood  itself. 
The  essential  point  is  that  there  are  10,000,000  negroes  here 
now  and  that  the  proportion  of  mulattoes  to  a  thousand 
blacks  has  increased  with  alarming  rapidity  since  1850. 

According  to  all  evidence  available,  then,  American  in¬ 
telligence  is  declining,  and  will  proceed  with  an  accelerat¬ 
ing  rate  as  the  racial  admixture  becomes  more  and  more 
extensive.  The  decline  of  American  intelligence  will  be  more 
rapid  than  the  decline  of  the  intelligence  of  European 
national  groups,  owing  to  the  presence  here  of  the  negro. 
These  are  the  plain,  if  somewhat  ugly,  facts  that  our  study 
shows.  The  deterioration  of  American  intelligence  is  not 
inevitable,  however,  if  public  action  can  be  aroused  to  pre¬ 
vent  it.  There  is  no  reason  why  legal  steps  should  not  be 
taken  which  would  insure  a  continuously  progressive  up¬ 
ward  evolution. 

The  steps  that  should  be  taken  to  preserve  or  increase 
our  present  intellectual  capacity  must  of  course  be  dictated 
by  science  and  not  by  political  expediency.  Immigration 
should  not  only  be  restrictive  but  highly  selective.  And  the 
revision  of  the  immigration  and  naturalization  laws  will 
only  afford  a  slight  relief  from  our  present  difficulty.  The 
really  important  steps  are  those  looking  toward  the  pre¬ 
vention  of  the  continued  propagation  of  defective  strains 
in  the  present  population.  If  all  immigration  were  stopped 
now,  the  decline  of  American  intelligence  would  still  be 
inevitable.  This  is  the  problem  which  must  be  met,  and  our 
manner  of  meeting  it  will  determine  the  future  course  of 
our  national  life. 


s 


" 


